Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tuesday 17 May 2016 18:02:36 Andreas Schwab wrote: > Joseph Myers writes: > > > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > >> I think it has become easier to override now and we just need to > >> update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/bits/typesizes.h to set > >>

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tuesday 17 May 2016 18:02:36 Andreas Schwab wrote: > Joseph Myers writes: > > > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > >> I think it has become easier to override now and we just need to > >> update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/bits/typesizes.h to set > >> > >> #define

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Joseph Myers writes: > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> I think it has become easier to override now and we just need to >> update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/bits/typesizes.h to set >> >> #define __INO64_T_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE >> #define

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Joseph Myers writes: > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> I think it has become easier to override now and we just need to >> update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/bits/typesizes.h to set >> >> #define __INO64_T_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE >> #define __OFF64_T_TYPE

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > i think even legacy software should be able to deal with 64bit off_t, > so we could avoid having two sets of filesystem apis or is 64bit-only > off_t more work to do in linux/glibc? wordsize-64 directories generally expect 64-bit interfaces.

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > i think even legacy software should be able to deal with 64bit off_t, > so we could avoid having two sets of filesystem apis or is 64bit-only > off_t more work to do in linux/glibc? wordsize-64 directories generally expect 64-bit interfaces.

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I think it has become easier to override now and we just need to > update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/bits/typesizes.h to set > > #define __INO64_T_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE > #define __OFF64_T_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE > #define

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I think it has become easier to override now and we just need to > update sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/bits/typesizes.h to set > > #define __INO64_T_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE > #define __OFF64_T_TYPE __UQUAD_TYPE > #define

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tuesday 17 May 2016 13:10:53 Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 05/04/16 23:08, Yury Norov wrote: > > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal > > subsystem. > > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. > > > > It was tested on QEMU and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Tuesday 17 May 2016 13:10:53 Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 05/04/16 23:08, Yury Norov wrote: > > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal > > subsystem. > > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. > > > > It was tested on QEMU and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On 05/04/16 23:08, Yury Norov wrote: > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal subsystem. > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. > > It was tested on QEMU and ThunderX machines. No major difference found. > This is RFC because ILP32

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On 05/04/16 23:08, Yury Norov wrote: > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal subsystem. > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. > > It was tested on QEMU and ThunderX machines. No major difference found. > This is RFC because ILP32

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:28:03AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > >>I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > >>Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > >

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:28:03AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > >>I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > >>Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > >

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 01:51:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:28:03AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > The discussion is mainly around whether USER_DS for 32-bit compat apps > > should be the same as USER_DS for native 32-bit apps. Even for native > > 32-bit kernels, we

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 01:51:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:28:03AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > The discussion is mainly around whether USER_DS for 32-bit compat apps > > should be the same as USER_DS for native 32-bit apps. Even for native > > 32-bit kernels, we

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:28:03AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > The discussion is mainly around whether USER_DS for 32-bit compat apps > should be the same as USER_DS for native 32-bit apps. Even for native > 32-bit kernels, we don't use STACK_TOP as addr_limit. A read/write from >

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:28:03AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > The discussion is mainly around whether USER_DS for 32-bit compat apps > should be the same as USER_DS for native 32-bit apps. Even for native > 32-bit kernels, we don't use STACK_TOP as addr_limit. A read/write from >

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:11:23PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: > On 2016/5/12 23:28, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > >>On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>>On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:11:23PM +0800, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: > On 2016/5/12 23:28, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > >>On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>>On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi, On 2016/5/12 23:28, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi, On 2016/5/12 23:28, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I debugged preadv02 and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I debugged preadv02 and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I debugged preadv02 and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I debugged preadv02 and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > > Test passes {iovec_base =

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > > Test passes {iovec_base =

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > > of vector, and kernel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > > of vector, and kernel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write. > > There are 2 problems: > 1. How

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write. > > There are 2 problems: > 1. How

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:19:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 12 May 2016 03:20:00 Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > > of vector, and kernel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:19:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 12 May 2016 03:20:00 Yury Norov wrote: > > > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > > of vector, and kernel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thursday 12 May 2016 03:20:00 Yury Norov wrote: > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write. > > There are 2 problems: > 1. How kernel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thursday 12 May 2016 03:20:00 Yury Norov wrote: > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. > Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element > of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write. > > There are 2 problems: > 1. How kernel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi, I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write. There are 2 problems: 1. How kernel allows such address to be passed to fs subsystem; 2. How fs

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi, I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug. Test passes {iovec_base = 0x, iovec_len = 64} as one element of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write. There are 2 problems: 1. How kernel allows such address to be passed to fs subsystem; 2. How fs

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

Hi, Andrew On 2016/4/28 5:15, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: Hi, Yury On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: There are about 20 failing

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

Hi, Andrew On 2016/4/28 5:15, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: Hi, Yury On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. float_bessel

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor) > wrote: >> Hi, Yury >> >> >> On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: >>> >>> There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. >>>

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor) > wrote: >> Hi, Yury >> >> >> On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: >>> >>> There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. >>> float_bessel >>> float_exp_log >>> float_iperb >>>

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: > Hi, Yury > > > On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: >> >> There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. >> float_bessel >> float_exp_log >> float_iperb >> float_power >> float_trigo >> pipeio_1 >>

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: > Hi, Yury > > > On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: >> >> There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. >> float_bessel >> float_exp_log >> float_iperb >> float_power >> float_trigo >> pipeio_1 >> pipeio_3 >> pipeio_5 >>

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

Hi, Yury On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. float_bessel float_exp_log float_iperb float_power float_trigo pipeio_1 pipeio_3 pipeio_5 pipeio_8 abort01 clone02 kill11 mmap16 open12 pause01 rename11 rmdir02 umount2_01 umount2_02

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

Hi, Yury On 2016/4/6 6:44, Yury Norov wrote: There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. float_bessel float_exp_log float_iperb float_power float_trigo pipeio_1 pipeio_3 pipeio_5 pipeio_8 abort01 clone02 kill11 mmap16 open12 pause01 rename11 rmdir02 umount2_01 umount2_02

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Friday 08 April 2016, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov > >> wrote: > >>> v6: > >>> - time_t,

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Friday 08 April 2016, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov > >> wrote: > >>> v6: > >>> - time_t, __kenel_off_t and other types turned to be 32-bit > >>>

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov >> wrote: >>> v6: >>> - time_t, __kenel_off_t and other types turned to be 32-bit >>>for

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov >> wrote: >>> v6: >>> - time_t, __kenel_off_t and other types turned to be 32-bit >>>for compatibility reasons (after v5 discussion); > >

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov wrote: >> v6: >> - time_t, __kenel_off_t and other types turned to be 32-bit >>for compatibility reasons (after v5 discussion); Introducing a new arch today with y2038

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov wrote: >> v6: >> - time_t, __kenel_off_t and other types turned to be 32-bit >>for compatibility reasons (after v5 discussion); Introducing a new arch today with y2038 problems is not a good idea.

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Yury Norov wrote: >> We're already closer to the (future) y2038 than to the (past) introduction of >> LP64... > > This is not about Y2038 at all. In fact, current version doesn't fix > Y2038 problem, as we decided finally. Indeed. So

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Yury Norov wrote: >> We're already closer to the (future) y2038 than to the (past) introduction of >> LP64... > > This is not about Y2038 at all. In fact, current version doesn't fix > Y2038 problem, as we decided finally. Indeed. So these legacy applications have

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi Geert, On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:51:50AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Yuri, > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov wrote: > > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal > > subsystem. > > It works with updated glibc [1]

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi Geert, On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:51:50AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Yuri, > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov wrote: > > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal > > subsystem. > > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi Yuri, On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov wrote: > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal subsystem. > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. > > It was tested on QEMU and ThunderX machines. No

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

Hi Yuri, On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:08 AM, Yury Norov wrote: > This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal subsystem. > It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. > > It was tested on QEMU and ThunderX machines. No major difference found. >

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. float_bessel float_exp_log float_iperb float_power float_trigo pipeio_1 pipeio_3 pipeio_5 pipeio_8 abort01 clone02 kill11 mmap16 open12 pause01

Re: [RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 - LTP results

There are about 20 failing tests of 782 in lite scenario. float_bessel float_exp_log float_iperb float_power float_trigo pipeio_1 pipeio_3 pipeio_5 pipeio_8 abort01 clone02 kill11 mmap16 open12 pause01

[RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal subsystem. It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. It was tested on QEMU and ThunderX machines. No major difference found. This is RFC because ILP32 is not tested in big-endian mode. v3:

[RFC6 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

This version is rebased on kernel v4.6-rc2, and has fixes in signal subsystem. It works with updated glibc [1] (though very draft), and tested with LTP. It was tested on QEMU and ThunderX machines. No major difference found. This is RFC because ILP32 is not tested in big-endian mode. v3: