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-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 777431F55B for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 13:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860263972452; Thu, 28 May 2020 13:08:00 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 860263972452 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1590671280; bh=NWCnLQd1nUNoPoliGmEQeNgQiVngoxg1aBN/QFZx6kw=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=oS3ziWc6sI5OdAhPPz16OI7tm3j5Lrt+HZsng2DUaKPcqN7Pr+kCmZRU168FXFGRG gN3MbJ4xlDEyl2ZnSWN9Dp24tgPV77g9CG5KrswMhbz8NRTwIkBx7pUsyaZUwz4DPR VigpAggowrD7BIgdigD1u8Vp9dJykK1J2shjSycU= Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DB98395A839 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 13:07:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4DB98395A839 Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id c8so9489940iob.6 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:07:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NWCnLQd1nUNoPoliGmEQeNgQiVngoxg1aBN/QFZx6kw=; b=Ti983ICpHVAS4EM+XV992Li4Mdx3KJQRaT6TMK3QWij9dNMnXCquk+MrfG26V0ttoD z0phwVOF4bNpWyFJEjsHqdoDnRVYJ3+DN8cuDvMs/b8FLCCfzFcg9B9xc9lkUKOS7W9S ooEAfgaZjiohODfpmI527j4F87JbJ8Pl+rkMsVyQ3QNixChd++ZOhBtJ3fOQnATb0KFe LS4FQXwhliZ8EM1AEtvs+TOo5j/KcM6ZgUmE5MUMRmuZf3nK4chIRMkmnZspVuT45SaK nfyrMitNhOd0T/fG9vCtr1lmVGBpx1uXcYXeHtPRlIxsmLjFfZgaP59pbB3sU2Z9vExV d/jQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531X46QLLyJkyVT0c125fir9ldS/uxg6m1EWRSaRw0hj86HxNOS4 SI5yXk0ScAgte++ragnACbbZhR8xc/KvmRabTPrxwg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxB5uwM4NnLHU4VNEclBWZA8CIIDoqucWFrzbyex1wGxVOOmy0zYJUwZ9w3EfTTwqolzFoZmTKgGm/7lLlUVrA= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c112:: with SMTP id v18mr2257836iol.37.1590671276703; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:07:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200505181605.22346-1-lukma@denx.de> <87v9kkmgcw.fsf@igel.home> <87367lk0nk.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <87y2pdiltl.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <87sgfkb4ij.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87sgfkb4ij.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 06:07:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix __clock_gettime64 with _ISOMAC in sysdeps/generic/hp-timing.h To: Florian Weimer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" Reply-To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Andreas Schwab , Alistair Francis , "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" , Joseph Myers Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:58 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * H. J. Lu via Libc-alpha: > > > diff --git a/sysdeps/generic/hp-timing.h b/sysdeps/generic/hp-timing.h > > index af9d92f7f7..99b12995f1 100644 > > --- a/sysdeps/generic/hp-timing.h > > +++ b/sysdeps/generic/hp-timing.h > > @@ -24,6 +24,11 @@ > > #include > > #include > > > > +#ifdef _ISOMAC > > +# define __timespec64 timespec > > +# define __clock_gettime64 clock_gettime > > +#endif > > + > > /* It should not be used for ld.so. */ > > #define HP_TIMING_INLINE (0) > > To be honest, I would have expected different definitions of the timing > macros. This redirection looks a bit iffy for me for _ISOMAC. What do you have in mind? -- H.J.