From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-103724-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 116950 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2019 08:27:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 116941 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2019 08:27:53 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,UPPERCASE_50_75 autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-qk1-f194.google.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1563321715.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <a27e9b4daff95644725a72c8e468c9ec30420013.1563321715.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com>
In-Reply-To: <a27e9b4daff95644725a72c8e468c9ec30420013.1563321715.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com>
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 08:27:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1cbqOK5qc+02YOKbqykkBEMr1zRAVF-1+NiwfrSL2L+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 07/23] RISC-V: Use 64-bit time_t and off_t for RV32 and RV64
To: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, 
	Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, macro@wdc.com, Zong Li <zongbox@gmail.com>, 
	Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:11 AM Alistair Francis
<alistair.francis@wdc.com> wrote:

> +#define __DEV_T_TYPE    __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __UID_T_TYPE    __U32_TYPE
> +#define __GID_T_TYPE    __U32_TYPE
> +#define __INO_T_TYPE    __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __INO64_T_TYPE     __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __MODE_T_TYPE      __U32_TYPE
> +#define __NLINK_T_TYPE    __U32_TYPE
> +#define __OFF_T_TYPE    __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __OFF64_T_TYPE     __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __PID_T_TYPE    __S32_TYPE
> +#define __RLIM_T_TYPE      __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __RLIM64_T_TYPE    __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __BLKCNT_T_TYPE    __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __BLKCNT64_T_TYPE  __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __FSBLKCNT_T_TYPE  __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __FSBLKCNT64_T_TYPE   __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __FSFILCNT_T_TYPE  __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __FSFILCNT64_T_TYPE   __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __FSWORD_T_TYPE   __SWORD_TYPE
> +#define __ID_T_TYPE     __U32_TYPE
> +#define __CLOCK_T_TYPE     __SLONGWORD_TYPE
> +#define __TIME_T_TYPE      __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __USECONDS_T_TYPE  __U32_TYPE
> +#define __SUSECONDS_T_TYPE __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __DADDR_T_TYPE     __S32_TYPE
> +#define __KEY_T_TYPE    __S32_TYPE
> +#define __CLOCKID_T_TYPE   __S32_TYPE
> +#define __TIMER_T_TYPE     void *
> +#define __BLKSIZE_T_TYPE   __S32_TYPE
> +#define __FSID_T_TYPE      struct { int __val[2]; }
> +#define __SSIZE_T_TYPE     __SWORD_TYPE
> +#define __SYSCALL_SLONG_TYPE __SQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __SYSCALL_ULONG_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE
> +#define __CPU_MASK_TYPE    __UQUAD_TYPE

I see you fixed __CLOCK_T_TYPE, but you still have a number
of types that differ from the kernel ABI for no apparent reason.

Is this intentional?

       Arnd