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 [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0D723857C72 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:23:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F0D723857C72 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 F0D723857C72 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705422185; cv=none; b=wndWyx45N9PKsmMNRq8Dq89VR0hBMwZR479TULsSVmCbVD+iqWtzX7rg93Gv+iVM3kXt3f6ie+0fs5KQ26wfLD2DigbqUd7ZVXm5bg4JEkC8Cm09/upM6vniBWFM0fj+NarBEKXAaen1hZw2GP3ZLBZ94vI55FQQyA/ssVe8uEA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705422185; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YAcStiOpm9to5mKacSm0LPXSZRLmVFObR6MMLTGXHmM=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=AzFbYIaLrAQeE7+3TM1lYU4OwZVBDhmvBmUfPT3ns4HESqjRbBnfAsGdjhH3K4Op617X5gmq5dfzQJptr+1z0/T2a+vJ51pcNp86UIybM9rGxayt0d955/WffLn+N2/O1H/EkKnR+UIj/vgCxbw6HM7tVs2mKnFUCzEf0CU9cdY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1705422183; 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=2nBT9ODk5itwmti+oBO3y3mVCHDgk2pTpF85Dy9ZGX8=; b=DzR6bRbc7zi1YRU0PN9pMlf2hDmclEj541ax5j+3/VjXYH3KuazBNedTHPQ/v1Jjeo7cGT x7TGfHeNHqkA12NioK6rjPeMnet4mXSgA5fA0H7wr6vpGIsH55L4HBg+lXR1twIkeBFAih Ob/yxq68LsnTf+VBmKFluw6KIW0yy3o= 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-561-O1bEa4URPKax9JHbMVSBOQ-1; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:23:00 -0500 X-MC-Unique: O1bEa4URPKax9JHbMVSBOQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (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 7F33485A58A; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.140]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D57E492BE6; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Rich Felker Cc: Adhemerval Zanella Netto , Antonios Salios via Libc-help , Antonios Salios , Jan Henrik Weinstock , Lukas =?utf-8?Q?J?= =?utf-8?Q?=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> <8734ux2sdy.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20240116155650.GQ22081@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:22:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20240116155650.GQ22081@brightrain.aerifal.cx> (Rich Felker's message of "Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:56:51 -0500") Message-ID: <87r0ih1c4g.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 10.11.54.10 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_H4,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: * Rich Felker: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 04:46:17PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Adhemerval Zanella Netto: >>=20 >> > 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 developme= nt >> > 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. >>=20 >> 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 i= s >> probably easier to address, and it has to be changed for compatibility >> with other libcs anyway. > > If there are applications assuming __USE_TIME_BITS64 implies redirects > and doing some hack around that, they really need to be fixed not to > do that. It will break on musl with (not yet merged) rv32 port as well > as any future 32-bit ports, which won't have any redirects because > there is no legacy 32-bit time_t ABI to support. That's actually not a problem because __USE_TIME_BITS64 is not defined on rv32 et al. (hence the complaint about what the UAPI headers are doing). Thanks, Florian