From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-41092-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2899 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2012 12:02:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 2653 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2012 12:02:05 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-qa0-f51.google.com) (209.85.216.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:01:45 +0000
Received: by qaea16 with SMTP id a16so802609qae.3        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.135.10 with SMTP id l10mr8768813qct.6.1340798504772; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.192.129 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <bde2af16-b04e-4e17-a22e-3fe0941e2496@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAMe9rOqE84CeCEZHxahccP2obgb50zdJWuY0z3UzWnDYn=g_4A@mail.gmail.com>	<ccd4a6ab-f279-477f-b48b-94b8f4afd37d@googlegroups.com>	<CAMe9rOqhnmcUhjO8SH6Ggz-VmyGFyuDrMHJU27HjKV+UM1RASA@mail.gmail.com>	<69b1606d-6150-46eb-a426-93bfad19e7a2@googlegroups.com>	<CAMe9rOpw=BczUuJrJxzE_JnnXe9br3H+-O+P4=u0Ce1Hs7KcAg@mail.gmail.com>	<bde2af16-b04e-4e17-a22e-3fe0941e2496@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:02:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqN3d2aRyUF6YUNmVN=4c1X4hT1ru2iFm4zeXUTWGybXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [x86-64 psABI] RFC: Extend x86-64 psABI to support x32
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: x32-abi@googlegroups.com
Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, 	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, GDB <gdb@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Mark Butler <butlerm@middle.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:22:45 PM UTC-6, H.J. wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Mark Butler wrote:
>> >
>> >> x32 is designed to replace ia32 where long is 32-bit, not x86-64.
>> >>
>> > I understand, but wouldn't L64P32 be much better in the long run? In
>> > terms
>> > of compatibility with LP64, and an LP64 kernel in particular? =A0The
>> > structure
>> > layouts of any structure that did not contain pointers would be
>> > identical,
>> > for example. =A0struct timeval, struct timespec, struct stat, and on a=
nd
>> > on...
>>
>> Linux/x32 uses the same layout for struct timeval, struct timespec, stru=
ct
>> stat,
>> as Linux/x86-64. It is orthogonal to L64 vs L32.
>>
> If POSIX requires struct timespec to look like this:
>
> struct timespec {
> =A0 time_t tv_sec;
> =A0 long =A0 tv_nsec;
> }
>
> then how can an ABI with 32 bit longs have the same struct timespec layout
> as an ABI with 64 bit longs?
>

We changed it to

struct timespec
  {
    __time_t tv_sec;		/* Seconds.  */
    __syscall_slong_t tv_nsec;	/* Nanoseconds.  */
  };


--=20
H.J.