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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (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 0E4531F463 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:11:57 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=i2WV J1Y1jk8gXrYrEr0p4TUahnAPYJCz80q6r7UX9DGUAQ1zeuhkz0izVkh3Hl0H+jKJ p9nDA58LsSX1p0dlTioCLEqSqV8tjTsOVBKu8H8iZefvejftA5T20s8c5NSUNGnl GkXw6Bu5Da2s4iLiqqZXzHTArwsTCccbHwlw2Bc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=default; bh=ClfjopKw4I zu/MAPX1r7DJKR2Zo=; b=NFnBrPGNy+lGkNFKENZAQsmRadY0aZOi3RiR4Wvhb6 kruoFf8qzcDAwVI/TaCnjYc5uJhf4UHggVE/FWM7LKxdFB0QEqRcRbOv3hg5fCel 4W571sQfUi0/o09h5A+3oH7Uzq8oKoRR4BG3q8p0su09/VQkkDDfdZCQtiInJurj 0= Received: (qmail 84699 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2019 22:11:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 84687 invoked by uid 89); 30 Dec 2019 22:11:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 23:11:32 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 32-bit time_t inside itimerval To: Alistair Francis Cc: GNU C Library , Alistair Francis , Lukasz Majewski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 10:22 PM Alistair Francis wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 8:57 PM Alistair Francis wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, agreed. I have updated the RV32 port to internally convert > > > between 32/64-bit. > > > > Any chance of making this the default implementation for 32-bit > > rather than RV32 specific? The code should be the same for any > > time64 user space regardless of the architecture. > > I was thinking about this. > > I don't know of a good way to make it apply only to 32-bit archs with > a 64-bit time_t.This could actually just apply to all 32-bit archs. > That way ones that are 64-bit time_t are covered and ones that aren't > will just do an extra conversion with no effect. > > Making it 32-bit in general seems reasonable to me, I just have to > figure out a way to test it though. Maybe Lukasz already has a plan for this, I don't think it's fundamentally different from the other system calls that he has converted already to work with time64 callers. Arnd