From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS22989 209.51.188.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F0B61F8C6 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 21:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39218 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m1FZA-0008Il-F0 for normalperson@yhbt.net; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:58:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m1FYp-0007rN-5h for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:58:28 -0400 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:34374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m1FYm-0001Bz-9S for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:58:26 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4968160083; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id qx6zI_Fr2RZi; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B90F1600AF; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:58:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id LEd0BgiV93tz; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-172-91-119-151.socal.res.rr.com [172.91.119.151]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06122160083; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:58:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Florian Weimer , Bruno Haible References: <20210702023332.2482490-1-eggert@cs.ucla.edu> <4302797.ikRTjI96fm@omega> <87y2akltl7.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <1882389.maKspNx483@omega> <87eecabjhf.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Subject: Re: [PATCH] year2038: support glibc 2.34 _TIME_BITS=64 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:58:17 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87eecabjhf.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=131.179.128.68; envelope-from=eggert@cs.ucla.edu; helo=zimbra.cs.ucla.edu X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: "bug-gnulib" On 7/7/21 1:45 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > Y2038 support requires recompilation. If you are able to do that, why > not recompile for a 64-bit architecture? Doesn't this argue against _TIME_BITS=3D64 in general? It seems to be=20 saying that one should just recompile for 64-bit, and never use=20 _TIME_BITS=3D64. > This probably needs per-package/component work to enable dual ABI, > similar to what glibc did for its time_t interfaces.... > I don't expect many upstreams to support this effort. Agreed. > Two separate i386 ports seem to require the least human > resources to maintain. That's a reasonable approach and if people want to do that they can,=20 even with the latest Gnulib and the next version of Glibc. However, people who want to run old binaries will surely stick to the=20 32-bit-time_t i386 port, which means they won't use the 64-bit-time_t=20 i386 port. So it's not clear to me that they will cotton to this approach= .