[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52DCF67A.3020706@barfooze.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:12:10 +0100
From: John Spencer <maillist-musl@...fooze.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Discussion of partly-invasive changes needed for x32 port
Jens Gustedt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 20.01.2014, 09:43 +0100 schrieb Luca Barbato:
>> 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.
>
> I have difficulties in understanding why C11 pops up, here. Compound
> literals are in C since C99. gcc and clang support them since
> ages.
>
what rich had in mind was usage of _Generic in the x32 __scc
(syscall-cast) macro:
instead of
#define __scc(X) sizeof(1?(X):0ULL) < 8 ? (unsigned long) (X) : (long
long) (X)
something along the lines of
_Generic((X), struct timespec*: &(struct timespec){.sec = (X).sec, .nsec
= (X).nsec}, default: sizeof(1?(X):0ULL) < 8 ? (unsigned long) (X) :
(long long) (X))
however the only available compiler implementing _Generic is Clang.
not even GCC 4.8.2 supports it. however i've seen some pseudo _Generic
implementation on your blog [1], imo we could use the bits described
there, namely
"
__typeof__(EXP) gives the type of the expression EXP
__builtin_types_compatible_p(T1, T2) is true if the two types are
compatible
__builtin_choose_expr(CNTRL, EXP1, EXP2) choose between the two
expressions at compile time.
"
to implement the above macro, as x32 requires a very recent GCC (>= 4.7)
anyway, i see no big problem in using those gcc helpers in lieu of _Generic.
[1]
http://gustedt.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/emulating-c11-compiler-features-with-gcc-_generic/
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.
