On Monday 16 February 2015 12:51:35 Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Would it really be that hard to do:
> > >
> > > if (ILP32_on_64_process) tv_nsec = (int)tv_nsec;
> > >
> > > or similar? That's all that's needed.
> > >
> > > > In some
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Would it really be that hard to do:
> >
> > if (ILP32_on_64_process) tv_nsec = (int)tv_nsec;
> >
> > or similar? That's all that's needed.
> >
> > > In some cases, there may also be a measurable performance penalty
> > > in i
On Wednesday 11 February 2015 16:37:58 Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:02:55PM +0100, a...@arndb.de wrote:
> > Rich Felker hat am 11. Februar 2015 um 21:12 geschrieben:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:50:06PM +0100, a...@arndb.de wrote:
> > > > > > At least for AArch64 ILP32 we ar
On Monday 16 February 2015 10:38:18 Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:40:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 13 February 2015 13:37:07 Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 05:33:46PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > I think there is another problem with sig
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:40:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 13 February 2015 13:37:07 Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 05:33:46PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > > The data structure definition is a little bit fragile, as it
> > > > > > depends on
> > > > > > u
On Friday 13 February 2015 13:37:07 Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 05:33:46PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > The data structure definition is a little bit fragile, as it depends
> > > > > on
> > > > > user space not using the __BIT_ENDIAN symbol in a conflicting way. So
> >
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 05:33:46PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > The data structure definition is a little bit fragile, as it depends on
> > > > user space not using the __BIT_ENDIAN symbol in a conflicting way. So
> > > > far we have managed to keep that outside of general purpose headers,
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:30:13AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:33:56PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 07:59:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Catalin Marinas hat am 12. Februar 2015 um 19:17
> > > geschrieben:
> > > > The solution (for new
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:33:56PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 07:59:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Catalin Marinas hat am 12. Februar 2015 um 19:17
> > > geschrieben:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:21:18PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 201
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 07:59:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Catalin Marinas hat am 12. Februar 2015 um 19:17
> > geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:21:18PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:39:19PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015
> Catalin Marinas hat am 12. Februar 2015 um 19:17
> geschrieben:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:21:18PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:39:19PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > I don't know if this has
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:21:18PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:39:19PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> > > I think we need to open
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:12:34AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Szabolcs Nagy [2015-02-11 20:05:37 +0100]:
> > (i think this is also a problem if userspace code uses syscall(2) directly,
> > libc cannot possibly know where to signextend and the kernel side does not
> > do the fixup right now)
>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 08:30:10AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:15:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On 02/11/2015 11:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:15:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On 02/11/2015 11:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate
>> compilation environments, but it's not related to the core
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 03:50:24PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:15:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On 02/11/2015 11:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate
> > compilation environments, but it's not related t
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:15:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 11:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate
> compilation environments, but it's not related to the core issue: that
> the definition of timespec violates core (no
* Szabolcs Nagy [2015-02-11 20:05:37 +0100]:
>
> (i think this is also a problem if userspace code uses syscall(2) directly,
> libc cannot possibly know where to signextend and the kernel side does not
> do the fixup right now)
>
nobody picked up this issue, is this resolved?
ie. if userspace
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16437
> >
> > Please leave x32 out of this discussion. I have resolved this bug
> > as WONTFIX.
>
> From the glibc side, I thought things went by a consensus process
> these days, not the old WONTFIX r
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:02:55PM +0100, a...@arndb.de wrote:
> Rich Felker hat am 11. Februar 2015 um 21:12 geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:50:06PM +0100, a...@arndb.de wrote:
> > > > > At least for AArch64 ILP32 we are still free to change the user/kernel
> > > > > ABI, so we could
Sorry about the HTML mail, I'm currently travelling without access to my regular
mail client.
> "a...@arndb.de" hat am 11. Februar 2015 um 22:02 geschrieben:
>
> Rich Felker hat am 11. Februar 2015 um 21:12 geschrieben:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:50:06PM +0100, a...@arndb.de wrote:
> >
On 02/11/2015 11:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate
compilation environments, but it's not related to the core issue: that
the definition of timespec violates core (not obscure) requirements of
both POSIX and C11. At the time you were probably unawar
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:50:06PM +0100, a...@arndb.de wrote:
> > > At least for AArch64 ILP32 we are still free to change the user/kernel
> > > ABI, so we could add wrappers for the affected syscalls to fix this up.
> > >
> >
> > yes, afaik on x32 the 64bit kernel expects 64bit layout,
> > arm64
>> > trivially satisfied if you consider x32 and x86_64 separate
>> > compilation environments, but it's not related to the core issue: that
>> > the definition of timespec violates core (not obscure) requirements of
>> > both POSIX and C11. At the time you were probably unaware of the C11
>> > req
> Szabolcs Nagy hat am 11. Februar 2015 um 20:05 geschrieben:
> * Catalin Marinas [2015-02-11 17:39:19 +]:
> > (adding Marcus)
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> > > I think we need
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:34:23AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16:58AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> >> >> > I think we need to open a discussio
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16:58AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
>> >> > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc
>> >> > bug #16437, which prese
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:16:58AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> >> > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc
> >> > bug #16437, which presently applies only to x32 (ILP32 ABI on x86_64):
> >> >
> >>
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> i know at least one android kernel issue: there is an ioctl for the
> alarm device that takes timespec argument
>
> (i think it's not in the mainline kernel and i guess android does
> not care about x32 so it was not an issue so far, but thi
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:39:19PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> (adding Marcus)
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > > New vers
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:33:32AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski w
* Catalin Marinas [2015-02-11 17:39:19 +]:
> (adding Marcus)
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +, Rich Felker wrote:
> > I don't know if this has been discussed on libc-alpha yet or not, but
> > I think we need to open a discussion of how it relates to open glibc
> > bug #16437, whic
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:33:32AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> > New version with all of the requested changes.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> > New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the
>> > latest sources.
>> >
>> > Notable changes f
(adding Marcus)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:13:02PM +, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the
> > > latest sources.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 at 16:52:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the
> > latest sources.
> >
> > Notable changes from the previous versions:
> > VDSO code has been factored o
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the latest sources.
>
> Notable changes from the previous versions:
> VDSO code has been factored out to be easier to understand and easier to
> maintain.
> Move the config
New version with all of the requested changes. Updated to the latest sources.
Notable changes from the previous versions:
VDSO code has been factored out to be easier to understand and easier to
maintain.
Move the config option to the last thing that gets added.
Added some extra COMPAT_* macros
38 matches
Mail list logo
