From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60503 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2018 12:27:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 60491 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2018 12:27:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=claim X-HELO: smtp6-g21.free.fr Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:27:00 -0000 From: Albert ARIBAUD To: Joseph Myers Cc: Subject: Re: [[PATCH RFC 2] 02/63] Y2038: add function __difftime64 Message-ID: <20180419142735.41788eeb@athena> In-Reply-To: References: <20180418201819.15952-1-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> <20180418201819.15952-2-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> <20180418201819.15952-3-albert.aribaud@3adev.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 Hi Joseph, On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 21:50:17 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote : > On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Albert ARIBAUD (3ADEV) wrote: > > > diff --git a/time/Versions b/time/Versions > > index fd838181e4..57314b98c8 100644 > > --- a/time/Versions > > +++ b/time/Versions > > @@ -65,4 +65,7 @@ libc { > > GLIBC_2.16 { > > timespec_get; > > } > > + GLIBC_2.27 { > > + __difftime64; > > + } > > Please send any such patches as appropriate for current master, which > means new symbols need to be at the version for the *next* release, > currently 2.28. That's an overlook on my side; I'll bump up to 2.28. > Each patch should avoid regressions, meaning that it should include > updates to all affected ABI baselines, unless there is a reason the series > would need to be squashed for commit (the series as a whole should also be > tested with build-many-glibcs.py). Since there are no ABI baseline > updates whatever in the series byeond two librt.abilist files and two > libpthread.abilist files, but new ABIs are added to other libraries such > as libc, either the series is seriously broken or the claim of no test > regressions is incorrect. The series is presented as a lot of small patches for clarity, with only the final patch potentially modifying the public API (i.e., until that patch, 'time_t' is always 32-bit, and only after the final patch 'time_t' /may/ be 32- /or/ 64-bit depending on _TIME_BITS). I expect that the final series can and will be squashed indeed. Re: test regressions: what I did was, on a target system, e.g. native on an ARM system, to create two GLIBC trees, one with and one without the patch set, configure them identically (except of course for the build destination), run "make" and then run "make check" on both trees, and compare the lists of errors, assuming that when the lists of errors are the same there is no make check regression -- and then same for 'make xcheck'. > As previously discussed, new ABI additions should be avoided for platforms > where time_t is already 64-bit. Obviously testing on such platforms is > needed to make sure they continue to work just as they do now. I'll add a 64-bit platform test on next run. Cordialement, Albert ARIBAUD 3ADEV