From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34250)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1SDhPk-00006Y-D9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:23:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1SDhPi-00078k-Hl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:23:11 -0400
Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([78.47.199.172]:39511)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <weil@mail.berlios.de>) id 1SDhPi-00078L-BR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:23:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4F760819.60409@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:23:05 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1333130099-25238-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<4F75F468.7010804@codemonkey.ws> <4F75F564.7040602@mail.berlios.de>
	<4F75FB78.4090501@codemonkey.ws> <4F76018A.308@redhat.com>
	<4F76042A.8040007@codemonkey.ws> <4F7605E9.4060608@redhat.com>
	<4F760697.7060304@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4F760697.7060304@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qtest: fix 32-bit build
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 30.03.2012 21:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/30/2012 02:13 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>> On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>>>>> Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
>>>>>> a 32 bit long).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bug in w64 (it has a broken ABI).
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we actually build and run on w64??
>>>>
>>>> It's actually sensible and x32 does the same.  Not too urgent though.
>>>
>>> I don't understand how making a long 32 bit is sensible but...  I 
>>> sent a
>>> patch that should at least address q64.
>>>
>>> Am not sure what x32 is though.
>>
>> x32 is 32-bit ABI (with 32-bit pointers and 4GB address space) with the
>> x86-64 (64-bit) ISA.
>
> Wow.  That's..  interesting :-)
>
> In general, violating sizeof(long) >= sizeof(void *) seems like an 
> exceeding bad idea to me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori

Any 32 bit system will have to use a 64 bit time_t sooner or later
to avoid an overflow. Not only w64 but also w32 supports it.
Future 32 bit Linux versions will also need it.

The size of a long is a different matter.

Regards,
Stefan W.