Re: [PATCH] x86: uapi: Fix __BITS_PER_LONG for x32

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 09:02 -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > * Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h
> > > b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h
> > > index b0ae1c4..217909b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h
> > > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> > >  #ifndef __ASM_X86_BITSPERLONG_H
> > >  #define __ASM_X86_BITSPERLONG_H
> > > 
> > > -#ifdef __x86_64__
> > > +#if defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ILP32__)
> > >  # define __BITS_PER_LONG 64
> > 
> > Can we write this as:
> > 
> >    #ifdef __ILP64__

Assuming you meant __LP64__...

> Do all versions of gcc/clang define that, even if x32 isn't
> supported?

For gcc, it's been defined since 2003 (gcc 3.3):
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=0bdab2d89e28ca4dc84f8f0fafed85a4822bca49

For clang, it's been defined since before its first public release:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Basic/Targets.cpp?r1=38978&r2=38987&pathrev=161685

So gcc 3.1 and 3.2 didn't define it, but everything newer does.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Knowledge is power.  France is bacon.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part