The patch as already apply in sparse-next.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There was recently on the mailing list some questions
> and a need to support LLP64 model.
>
> This patch add is by adjusting a few size-related variables
> under the control of a new flag: -msize-llp64 (ugly name
> but we already have we have '-msize-long').
I am wondering how does gcc windows handle such situation.
Should we some flag some arch thing like "mingw64" which
turn on the LLP64 mode. If gcc has such a flag for cross compile
mingw, we should borrow that instead.
]> + if (arch_m64 == ARCH_LP64) {
> + bits_in_long = 64;
> + max_int_alignment = 8;
> + size_t_ctype = &ulong_ctype;
> + ssize_t_ctype = &long_ctype;
> + add_pre_buffer("#weak_define __LP64__ 1\n");
> + add_pre_buffer("#weak_define _LP64 1\n");
> + } else {
It works as it is. But we might want to test against arch_m64==ARCH_LLP64
just to make the code section clear what it was for.
Again, ff there is a new version of patch. I will replace this one in
sparse-next.
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
