On Thursday 09 May 2013 00:18:15 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/08/2013 09:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 09 May 2013 00:04:03 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 05/08/2013 09:00 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> When including these headers in the x32 ABI, the structs get > >>> declared with 32bit sizes which is incorrect. Use long long > >>> and such to make it work both with x32 and x86_64. > >> > >> I'm not sure if it is okay to change the types, even within the > >> same size. Perhaps use __u64/__s64? > > > > sorry, i don't follow. changing types isn't ok (unsigned long to > > unsigned long long), but changing to __u64 is ok (unsigned long to > > __u64 which is typedefed to unsigned long long) ? > > > > i don't have a problem using __u64/__s64, i just don't understand > > your logic. > > In userspace, __u64 is often defined as "unsigned long" on 64 bits.
my tests would seem to indicate otherwise, at least for x86:
$ gcc -E - <<<"#include <linux/types.h>" | grep '__u64;'
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long __u64;
$ gcc -m32 -E - <<<"#include <linux/types.h>" | grep '__u64;'
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long __u64;
$ gcc -mx32 -E - <<<"#include <linux/types.h>" | grep '__u64;'
__extension__ typedef unsigned long long __u64;
and doing a printf("%i\n", sizeof(__u64)) shows 8 for each of the above builds
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
