Am Freitag, 14. Dezember 2018, 15:38:53 CET schrieb David Laight: > From: Richard Weinberger > > Sent: 13 December 2018 09:05 > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:03 AM Kevin Easton <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:29:14AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > > ... > > > > I can't say anything about the syscall interface. However, what I do know > > > > is that the weird combination of a 32-bit userland with a 64-bit kernel > > > > interface is sometimes causing issues. For example, application code usually > > > > expects things like time_t to be 32-bit on a 32-bit system. However, this > > > > isn't the case for x32 which is why code fails to build. > > > > > > OpenBSD and NetBSD both have 64-bit time_t on 32-bit systems and have > > > had for four or five years at this point. > > > > They can also do flag-day changes and break existing applications, Linux not. > > Not true at all. > The binary compatibility in NetBSD is probably better than that in Linux > and goes back a long way. > > For the time_t changes new system calls numbers were assigned where needed. > The system headers and libc were updated so that recompiled code would > use the new system calls. > > The only real advantage that NetBSD has is that its libc (and standard > utilities) are released with the kernel making it much easier to get > applications to use the new features. > > This was also done a very long time ago when file offsets were extended > to 64 bits. > > Some of the system calls have quite a few 'compatibility' versions. > As well as the ones for emulations of other operating systems. > It has been possible to run copies of firefox compiled for Linux > under NetBSD. I stand corrected, I was under the impression that NetBSD went the same path as OpenBSD did. Thanks for pointing this out. Thanks, //richard
