On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Thursday 12 November 2015 14:47:18 Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes: >> >> > On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:44:55 Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes: >> >> >> >> > What do you mean with 32-bit off_t? >> >> >> >> An ABI with 32-bit off_t, ie. all currently implemented 32-bit ABIs. >> >> >> >> > Do you mean that glibc emulates a 32-bit off_t on top of the 64-bit >> >> > __kernel_loff_t? >> >> >> >> Glibc is bridging the user-space ABI to the kernel ABI. >> > >> > Ok, but why? >> >> That's how the ABI is defined right now. I didn't make that up. > > Ok, I guess it will remain a mystery then.
The biggest question is here is how much compatibility do we want with other 32bit ABIs? Do we want off_t to be 32bit or 64bit? > > Should we perhaps define __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_OFF_T for the unistd.h > file then, so we provide both the off_t and the loff_t based syscalls? I think that is backwards ... > > That would avoid the extra wrapper in glibc when using a 32-bit > off_t if that is the preferred mode for user space. Other targets like tilegx does not do that and has a pure 32bit mode. Only score does that. Thanks, Andrew > > Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
