On Friday 13 November 2015 17:10:44 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 13 November 2015 07:38:49 Andrew Pinski wrote:I just did a little bit of digging through glibc history and found that
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:I would much prefer off_t to be defined as __kernel_loff_t unconditionally,
On Thursday 12 November 2015 14:47:18 Andreas Schwab wrote:The biggest question is here is how much compatibility do we want with
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:Ok, I guess it will remain a mystery then.
On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:44:55 Andreas Schwab wrote:That's how the ABI is defined right now. I didn't make that up.
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:Ok, but why?
What do you mean with 32-bit off_t?An ABI with 32-bit off_t, ie. all currently implemented 32-bit ABIs.
Do you mean that glibc emulates a 32-bit off_t on top of the 64-bitGlibc is bridging the user-space ABI to the kernel ABI.
other 32bit ABIs?
Do we want off_t to be 32bit or 64bit?
with no support for _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 32. This is at least what I had
in mind when I wrote the asm-generic/unistd.h header.
We should probably find out what happened for the other glibc ports that
were implemented for the architectures using this. It's possible that
there was a good reason for supporting _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 32 at the
time, but I can't think of one and maybe it is one that is no longer
Do you know what x86/x32 does for off_t? Do they also implement both
_FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 32 and _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64 on top of the
Chris Metcalf added the files that are now in
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/generic/wordsize-32/ and that provide the
implementation for 32-bit off_t in glibc on top of the 64-bit
Chris, do you remember what led to that? Do you think we still need
to have 32-bit off_t on all new architectures, or could we move
on to making 64-bit off_t the default when adding a port?