From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4158385559C for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:21:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B4158385559C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id w26-20020a056830061a00b0066c320f5b49so4791227oti.5 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:from:references :cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9t8j4SSoe6R0p9b4E9rCcnT/7iM7cdJ0rqmrVMOmiGQ=; b=PiVvXX290n9HPyK1ZNtj4WoorucXC4lalgHBytK2F4DunSV0YsNIxpYUeVv/b8mO/7 FWb8izKtqc2SdS/yUXY2wEQUGHspON704sMpBnfDpcMqZXM9qmxF5QeKHsdGHZZyC0/E AorV4l4wfhzc6VDbk+6wAPajuXTR0IXD5uimaKQNabHqHtc7wOKvtPvdHJK8ytDSfdPf rE9jwB7l1KEOLZboUdcBI01GxkBV516QsrfT2TDVC3zn/0u0vHca+cfHvwRt6I5oJWPq uQwEGFPbl5rzwcEGufQ0i3Of+rKE6AFJUt2pewhY5Unj0WQDTmIdD9G4bF3LyAqLajQv Vrdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:from:references :cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9t8j4SSoe6R0p9b4E9rCcnT/7iM7cdJ0rqmrVMOmiGQ=; b=2rkeXay1rwNbd8DWuXJcdvtxuAq+utc49477sBtFEaxen11OVNXlFZPi9MZmDgB+lu Xm6Qkp9DkiKUozPbBA7m8mRcmRXoz66GQ6XJbU5ySDt1U/VuPEj7mVu5K7Bdm9KzhhLD Ku6wZOp0Lnpl/tZ7NUS3M6uaVw6dEeISBHQYv+CBayAeMbY3iInCE7Iuso2B+uCEKsFc IiGI1+cttKHnrGIwWXb7CHMJwUJI5kE8sP/nXx35OPulR9Wh0JD0IGZJRNtvF8FWswav FXGvXFMEyzVQwf7jEH3P2gcf534BIaUst4wMv9iIXugyWyajv/u2DJsTsUAzZ16lkcea 4B9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2Y5zk5j/Ts4SbsXjj8KdHtWzJY2jCv2SGdaSug/zY+KRuKyhB3 8hWWH4ogkhV4Z10tVgL1R8JbTA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6hx/Wu/6Az6GJQNeab18k/YUKVCaQc3p5HCRf4A/BZmsX5Dg4nRpdhoRGHiwSsIPvJUGMjrQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:53:b0:66c:3fc2:10d8 with SMTP id d19-20020a056830005300b0066c3fc210d8mr5838271otp.112.1667236884874; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2804:1b3:a7c0:17c8:29c8:c66:a795:b2b1? ([2804:1b3:a7c0:17c8:29c8:c66:a795:b2b1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k29-20020a056870959d00b0012c52bd4369sm3288207oao.19.2022.10.31.10.21.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <322bc962-f93d-8c81-15ac-d6b833f11363@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 14:21:22 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux: Alias non-LFS to LFS stat function for mips and sparc (BZ #29730) Content-Language: en-US To: Joseph Myers Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Aurelien Jarno , YunQiang Su References: <20221031160032.1813610-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <4cfb228a-9b6-a444-df78-e0932cd33f71@codesourcery.com> From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Organization: Linaro In-Reply-To: <4cfb228a-9b6-a444-df78-e0932cd33f71@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 31/10/22 13:58, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote: > >> However for misp64 and sparc64, which have a different struct stat >> layout between glibc and kABI; still have the same layout for non-LFS >> and LFS struct stat. For both cases there is no need to provide a > > What's the basis for that assertion? My understanding is that mips64 > (both n32 and n64) has *different* struct stat and struct stat64 layouts > (n32 obviously, since it's a 32-bit ABI using 64-bit registers, but > unfortunately n64 also has different layouts even though as a 64-bit ABI > it shouldn't have needed to do so). > Sigh, I just found out that st_size does indeed have different offset for stat and stat64.