Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-21 Thread Andreas Schwab
Konstantin Serebryany writes: > libsanitizer is a third party library, its primary repository is not gcc. _LP64 is also defined by other compilers. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for somet

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-21 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
>> >> libsanitizer is a third party library, its primary repository is not gcc. >> If we make such change (use __LP64__ instead of __WORDSIZE), we should >> make it upstream first. > > That is true, but it really should change, __WORDSIZE is a glibc private > macro that other programs just shouldn'

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 04:10:24PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > >> it is also redefined > >> properly for the compilers which don't have it and may not have > >> __LP64__ > > > > ??? __WORDSIZE is only defined by glibc. __LP64__ (or _LP64) is a > > standard macro defined by the compiler. >

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-21 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Konstantin Serebryany writes: > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Andreas Schwab >> wrote: >>> David Miller writes: >>> +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls? +// x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-21 Thread Andreas Schwab
Konstantin Serebryany writes: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> David Miller writes: >> >>> +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls? >>> +// x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32 >>> +// but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls. >>> +#if defined(__x86

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-20 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > David Miller writes: > >> +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls? >> +// x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32 >> +// but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls. >> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || __WORDSIZE == 64 > > I don't t

Re: [PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-20 Thread Andreas Schwab
David Miller writes: > +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls? > +// x32 (which defines __x86_64__) has __WORDSIZE == 32 > +// but it still needs to use 64-bit syscalls. > +#if defined(__x86_64__) || __WORDSIZE == 64 I don't think it is a good idea to use a glibc-internal macro. How about _

[PATCH] Fix sanitizer build on sparc64.

2012-11-20 Thread David Miller
[ Sorry, flubbed the gcc-patches address the first time. ] libsanitizer/ * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc (SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS): Define. (internal_mmap): Use it. (internal_filesize): Likewise. git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@1