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: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EB4C1F910 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:53:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.b="J80xz4RH"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADA3385840D for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:53:09 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BADA3385840D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668459189; bh=CE5hCh7LuiA1eWLzsR+aoUWY2WVczU5pTY2EtJ1lso0=; h=To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=J80xz4RHH0yow9rksUpUWRYAkA84dKOVkPngcJLYkav5S/QUsJf3kPHQaP/Lk2fFU zfTDomldpMeA+BO4WOUJtxolpfUXSbks7KIwQVUrbpYuCx7FiGKbUTHTdlJ2PMnK3D Ldam3+NyCB3gSoL5cP/pExIWnb5lw2S5aV+8MyvQ= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A96B3858C62 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:52:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 1A96B3858C62 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-322-dxRb2y3_M-yxjoz5ZWAsew-1; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:52:46 -0500 X-MC-Unique: dxRb2y3_M-yxjoz5ZWAsew-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADE39101A52A; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:52:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85B132166B2B; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:52:43 +0000 (UTC) To: Arsen =?utf-8?Q?Arsenovi=C4=87?= Cc: Adam Sampson , Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha , Sam James , autoconf@gnu.org, c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev, Zack Weinberg , David Seifert , Gentoo Toolchain , Paul Eggert , Frederic Berat Subject: Re: On time64 and Large File Support References: <87wn81q254.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <86cz9puvf5.fsf@aarsen.me> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:52:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <86cz9puvf5.fsf@aarsen.me> ("Arsen =?utf-8?Q?Arsenovi=C4=87?= =?utf-8?Q?=22's?= message of "Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:26:04 +0100") Message-ID: <87sfiltg14.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Florian Weimer Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" * Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87: > Evening, > > Adam Sampson writes: >> If the consensus on this does come down to the definition of new >> architecture triplets, are there any other changes that should (or >> could) be made at the same time, beyond time64 and LFS? > > Forwarding a suggestion from Arfrever: >> Please consider making regoff_t 64-bit, on both 32-bit and 64-bit >> architectures. >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D5945 >> https://wiki.musl-libc.org/functional-differences-from-glibc.html#Regula= r-expressions > > If an ABI break is inevitable, or a new ABI for the multilib setups, > this seems like a reasonable thing to include in it from my POV. Uhm, this seems to be something affecting 64-bit targets, not 32-bit targets, after the POSIX fix went in? We have a few more such quirks. (I understood the question to be about cleanup opportunities for 32-bit architectures.) Thanks, Florian