Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

2020-06-09 Thread Rich Felker
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:29:57AM +, Will Springer wrote: > On Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:56:47 PM PDT you wrote: > > On Friday, May 29, 2020 12:24:27 PM PDT Rich Felker wrote: > > > The argument passing for pread/pwrite is historically a mess and > > > differs between archs. musl has a dedicate

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

2020-06-09 Thread Will Springer
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:56:47 PM PDT you wrote: > On Friday, May 29, 2020 12:24:27 PM PDT Rich Felker wrote: > > The argument passing for pread/pwrite is historically a mess and > > differs between archs. musl has a dedicated macro that archs can > > define to override it. But it looks like it

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

2020-05-30 Thread Will Springer
On Friday, May 29, 2020 12:24:27 PM PDT Rich Felker wrote: > The argument passing for pread/pwrite is historically a mess and > differs between archs. musl has a dedicated macro that archs can > define to override it. But it looks like it should match regardless of > BE vs LE, and musl already defi

Re: [musl] ppc64le and 32-bit LE userland compatibility

2020-05-29 Thread Rich Felker
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:03:48PM +, Will Springer wrote: > The next problem concerns the ABI more directly. The failure mode was `file` > surfacing EINVAL from pread64 when invoked on an ELF; pread64 was passed a > garbage value for `pos`, which didn't appear to be caused by anything in > `f