From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A4E3858D28 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:46:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C2A4E3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org C2A4E3858D28 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705419984; cv=none; b=es7iIP3o5fexQ7zhEn6ieW3PC3lpMEaK9K7tmifl9/zmZzk2fsHl0Rp/FKjGFgKhx6s7ZrjWaqBE6tA1CBWvcvLmgYOtp+je/3FgE1hMAlWvMv9m4omyDDem2eK2zdGw1vCy9VcwI4cjT3biBumR+Ky9/+peD3s5R3H003zS2Ig= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705419984; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3A+RJwNg8QpXiG2NWunINQD+CtEyldMe1TMBnpk/zRQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=yAKBGy3P0F5WXaQQdtdOKDXWJvaS1UotK3GK1l/2qYciMOMG2DiRfBVKbDs3VZRcrKT4bwFyI8T7IhBZeWbeEAE1kUOVGk6brTCil6gCkgqlBO7YgRDVm4QTXADTiC1LVtswplYSQoUUEf+1mm0ocRViL4bMwMuIA3j5+OBUctw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1705419982; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=O+z0yy+s3jrDyZPtE0bV3coxcuE49genR6Ajqikbi4A=; b=UKmYm0ygr9kvrE2aN63xRgE/04Trk6GlOqFqq+1BmV39onX579INkzqVzT2haWCF9OKN64 0YqcmLqGoYwxtWiZQRfLmBfSAdpUzL7vAWk0C4apu77qwLCtvZLhRBUtdqS+Sxp9G75Few 3aBw+Y1CNZbBmqMxQNaQWWQpWIZmZvc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-374-ypVj6RK5Mz-YUGmQ7UWH1g-1; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:46:20 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ypVj6RK5Mz-YUGmQ7UWH1g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7540D185A781; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:46:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.140]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11B5940C6EB9; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:46:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Cc: Rich Felker , Antonios Salios via Libc-help , Antonios Salios , Jan Henrik Weinstock , Lukas =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BCnger?= Subject: Re: 64 bit time_t on riscv32 References: <877cka7m09.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <111c4bfb-bc58-412e-9a37-a5c2ed7f0e3c@linaro.org> <20240115222648.GO22081@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:46:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Adhemerval Zanella Netto's message of "Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:19:05 -0300") Message-ID: <8734ux2sdy.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.2 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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: * Adhemerval Zanella Netto: > My understanding was __USE_TIME_BITS64 would be required only for ABIs > that actually would multiple time_t sizes and the glibc 64 bit time_t=20 > supported was added on this assumption. However, the design document=20 > does state __USE_TIME_BITS64 would be defined even for architectures=20 > where is does not require it. I it was not really caught in development > because the design creator was not really much involved at the time. > > I think it should be feasible to fix it, although backporting it would > generate a quite large patch. It will break applications that use __USE_TIME_BITS64 with glibc's current semantics centered on time64 redirects (incorrectly, of course=E2=80=94it's an internal macro). I think the use in the kernel is probably easier to address, and it has to be changed for compatibility with other libcs anyway. Thanks, Florian