On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 01:19:14PM +0200, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote: > Just for the record (and to avoid anyone wasting their time on what’s > available > today): we are migrating this over to option (a) now, even though we would > prefer to see option (b) implemented. > > If we get a consensus on (b) in the next couple of days, we’ll redo things for > option (b). If not, we will have an implementation for option (a) available > that > we can hopefully all agree on merging.
When you post, please include the libc-alpha list (I think they are fine with cross-posting), maybe only for the cover letter as that's where the useful discussion seems to happen. It's interesting to re-read some older posts on x32 (it's not just time_t affected, though probably that the most visible): https://lwn.net/Articles/457089/ https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00487.html https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00574.html Basically for x32 POSIX compliance doesn't seem too critical. IIUC, the x32 wasn't added to solve a 32-bit compatibility problem but as a potential optimisation for specific cases. On ARM OTOH, (one of?) the main goal for AArch64 ILP32 is to offer a solution for 32-bit code when AArch32 is not present (and potentially slightly more optimal than AArch32 but not necessarily when compared to LP64). -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
