On Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 10:08 AM Kristof Provost <k...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2025, at 16:24, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 2/14/25 12:50, Kristof Provost wrote: > > The branch main has been updated by kp: > > URL: > https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=7e7f88001d7dfec83cd7568369be6a587d4a51ff > > commit 7e7f88001d7dfec83cd7568369be6a587d4a51ff > Author: Kristof Provost k...@freebsd.org > AuthorDate: 2025-02-07 10:29:26 +0000 > Commit: Kristof Provost k...@freebsd.org > CommitDate: 2025-02-14 17:47:52 +0000 > > pf: use time_t for storing time_t values > No change to the underlying type, so no ABI change. > We define __time_t as uint64_t if __LP64__, otherwise uint32_t, > and only define __LP64__ if long is 64 bits. > In other words: __time_t == long. > ok henning@ deraadt@ > Obtained from: OpenBSD, guenther <guent...@openbsd.org>, 6c1b69a0ff > Sponsored by: Rubicon Communications, LLC ("Netgate") > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D48963 > > This is an ABI change on non-i386 32-bit platforms in FreeBSD since they > all use a 64-bit type for time_t that is not the same size as long. Not > sure if the ABI change matters on FreeBSD though? > > It wasn’t intended to be an ABI change, hence the commit message. It > appears that’s only correct for x86 though. > Yes. It may have been true in openbsd land, but not FreeBSD. > So we’re only talking about armv7 and ppc32, if I’m not forgetting > anything. The former is on the removal list already, and the latter .. > well, I don’t know how many users there are. Both are likely to be embedded > platforms where the ABI change is going to be even less relevant (because > it really only matters if the kernel and userspace are not updated > together, and these are going to be embedded devices that are far more > likely to have everything updated simultaneously). > Armv7 will be around in 15. Ppc32 is likely going away. > So I’m unsure about what to do. I can revert this and we can just carry > this (trivial) diff to OpenBSD forever, or we can ignore the ABI breakage > given the above. I’m not inclined to do anything more involved though. > > Do you have any thoughts? > I think the diffs to OpenBSD are most undesirable of the alternatives. Major os breakage is fine. Tier2 platforms get a weaker version of compatibility. Armv7 is on the cusp of the abi needing to work. Sonce this is a private abi, and only a few programs are affected and they already need an update for 15 due to other changes (right?) And since providing backwards compatible ABI shims looks to be kinda nontrivial, I agree with the others: document in release notes and don't MFC and we're likrly good. If it is really important to someone AND everything works except for thos one detail between 14 and 15, then the project’s custom would be to integrate that patch, but not require the originator to do it. Tl;dr: mfc no. Relnotes yes. Warner Warner Best regards, > Kristof >
