[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52DCE1B8.3020100@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:43:36 +0100
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Discussion of partly-invasive changes needed for x32 port
On 20/01/14 08:41, Rich Felker wrote:
> Adding the workaround code at every syscall point is ugly, and
> possibly error-prone. An alternate possible solution is hacking up the
> syscall macros in syscall_arch.h to detect "const struct timespec *"
> arguments and auto-wrap them with compound literals that would fix-up
> the padding. However this probably requires either C11 or GNU C
> extensions. On the positive side, it would only affect x32; no changes
> at all would be made to the source files or other archs'
> syscall_arch.h logic.
Can a compiler supporting x32 be safely expected to support C11 ? If yes
sounds the best route.
lu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
