This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PATCH [3/n]: Add __snseconds_t and __SNSECONDS_T_TYPE
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Paul Eggert <eggert at gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:54:50 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH [3/n]: Add __snseconds_t and __SNSECONDS_T_TYPE
- References: <20120315192515.GA6585@intel.com><20120315195000.7E3BE2C0A3@topped-with-meat.com><CAMe9rOpXRcO6a4cFEU=s1Gjzzt87zvyzuLhAWupc2pOX6az6ig@mail.gmail.com><20120315232954.52CB42C0BB@topped-with-meat.com><CAMe9rOot6kFbuGWUXapVmaLO31TAuw39uvQ=D0Jj=aW3o1ve1g@mail.gmail.com><20120316225833.72A1B2C0D1@topped-with-meat.com><CAMe9rOqzurMxWVVABJPMRDF6wbb9gfg46Yvcba9gEFip7qyQKg@mail.gmail.com><20120411164734.EE7912C07D@topped-with-meat.com>
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
>> > It wasn't entirely clear to me that we'd resolved the question of tv_nsec
>> > ever not being 'long int'. ?But this change itself doesn't ever define
>> > __snseconds_t to anything but that, so it is not a problem so far.
>>
>> Is this OK to install then?
>
> I guess I'd prefer that we come closer to a clear resolution on the
> question of the tv_nsec type before deciding. ?If we're going to stick to
> the existing POSIX spec where tv_nsec must be 'long int', then there is no
> purpose to __snseconds_t but obfuscation.
>
> But if everyone is agreed that departing from POSIX here, or having POSIX
> changed, is a somewhat likely outcome, then the change can go in.
>
>
I don't believe x32 should follow the current POSIX to use "long int"
on __snseconds_t.
--
H.J.