On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 15 November 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wednesday 14 November 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >> On 11/14/2012 04:18 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> > Since we are in the review phase for two new architectures that we >> >> > should be merging into the mainline kernel, I think we need to >> >> > come up with a solution for making them use a proper 64-bit time_t. >> >> > >> >> > Right now, the only 32-bit user space interface we have to use 64-bit >> >> > time_t is the x32 side of x86-64, and that works by overriding all >> >> > "long" sized types to be 64 bit at the ABI level, which we don't >> >> > want for pure 32 bit architectures. >> >> >> >> Sort of. Either way, the kernel headers aren't really x32-clean yet, so >> >> we have an opportunity to do things more cleanly as we are implementing >> >> this. >> > >> > Ah, I didn't know that. How does one build an x32 libc then? >> >> Glibc has been providing its own types for years. >> Kernel provided types used to be wrong for ia32 >> on x86-64. > > What about ioctls and other calls then that actually do rely on the > kernel headers and use the __kernel_*_t types? > Glibc defines __syscall_slong_t and __syscall_ulong_t. -- H.J. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
