public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: "Andreas K. Huettel via Libc-alpha" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Cc: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: time64 / Large File Support: 2) default time64 breaks legacy 32bit binaries
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:43:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h6wd1sq1.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7196595.N7aMVyhfb1@pinacolada> (Andreas K. Huettel via Libc-alpha's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2023 00:59:52 +0100")

* Andreas K. Huettel via Libc-alpha:

> This was discussed already in the previous thread on this list [1],
> with reactions ranging from "need new triplet" via "need new libdir"
> to "meh".  The latter is a bit surprising given how much emphasis
> glibc usually places on backwards compatibility.

> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-November/143386.html

For me, it's ”meh” because for our distributions, we need to keep time_t
at 32 bits.  We don't want to allocate resources to make all core
libraries dual-time_t, like it was contributed to glibc.  But such a
dual-ABI nature would be a prerequisite for offering libraries that
support 64-bit time_t.  It really has to be in addition to 32-bit
time_t.

In my world, 32-bit support is for running binaries built with GCC 2.95.
(Some of them built decades ago, some of them new.)  Fedora also used to
have a 32-bit time_t use case for Wine, but I think that is rapidly
going away, with Wine transitioning to a different technology for
running 32-bit applications (the dependency is purely in the
implementation of Wine).

I expect that our ABI compatibility requirement will go away in the
second half of 2024.  Until then, it puts us in conflict with certain
64-bit time_t approaches suggested by the community.  I still hope that
we can eliminate the requirement sooner, so that I don't have to argue
against those approaches, but these kind of decisions are hard.  I
really wish we could avoid this conflict.

> While we could certainly go ahead and invent a solution in Gentoo here, this
> makes no sense at all for one distribution alone. This is an upstream problem
> and should be solved here... pretty please? opinions?

There's some risk that several key upstreams will tell us, “just rebuild
everything with time_t as 64-bit”, at which point we would have to come
up with a custom, downstream-only ABI that has dual time_t support.

And I don't think glibc is the upstream project you need to work with
here.

Thanks,
Florian


      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-26 10:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-25 23:57 The time64 and Large File Support mess Andreas K. Huettel
2023-01-25 23:58 ` time64 / Large File Support: 1) [2.28 Regression]: New getdents{64} implementation breaks qemu-user Andreas K. Huettel
2023-01-26 12:21   ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-01-27 20:08     ` Andreas K. Huettel
2023-01-25 23:59 ` time64 / Large File Support: 2) default time64 breaks legacy 32bit binaries Andreas K. Huettel
2023-01-26  4:13   ` Paul Eggert
2023-01-26 13:21     ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-01-26 23:35       ` Sam James
2023-01-27 17:33         ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-02-01 16:26         ` Florian Weimer
2023-02-01 19:47           ` Sam James
2023-02-01 19:54             ` Sam James
2023-02-03 17:52             ` Florian Weimer
2023-02-01 22:22           ` Michael Hudson-Doyle
2023-02-03 14:17             ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-02-03 18:56               ` Florian Weimer
2023-01-27  2:38       ` Paul Eggert
2023-01-27 17:40         ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-01-27 23:51           ` Paul Eggert
2023-01-27 23:58             ` Joseph Myers
2023-02-01 12:27               ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2023-01-26 10:43   ` Florian Weimer [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87h6wd1sq1.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com \
    --to=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dilfridge@gentoo.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).