This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] [BZ #19363] Use INTERNAL_SYSCALL_TIMES for Linux times
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:06:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BZ #19363] Use INTERNAL_SYSCALL_TIMES for Linux times
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20151215032733 dot GA14426 at gmail dot com> <mvm37v49itj dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <20151215150001 dot GT11489 at vapier dot lan> <mvmtwnj7ni7 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOqi=mbzbSzPB26HHm=K0iddv6K8Cs8ACbDd_p=Q-ShWew at mail dot gmail dot com> <mvm7fkf7hr0 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOrZc-CM4Rh4YBGUQeZzFC9kB0MJ8c-QZ_UST9s5=VXjYg at mail dot gmail dot com> <8760zza83t dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOphOzT=M9ni=Cxar=vaob3rgFoiGO2KS+jbetAXLQ5F3g at mail dot gmail dot com> <871tan9trb dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOq00tDiFqZh0g3tpfd9c1oKo7=k-Be3uF_ATTn0e9mQpQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <mvm37v27put dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOpRFDQsymEAiZ=MGXL49aZDBMfuMG=KrYZRGdS4DdZGrQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <mvmbn9q5xen dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOqFGUdyp_PZTxgmKEt8v8MYL36v6-zKcmO926XneM1JZw at mail dot gmail dot com> <mvm7fke5vgj dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56719A7F dot 2000403 at redhat dot com> <mvmzix94fzd dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de>
On 12/17/2015 09:49 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/16/2015 03:17 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Then they have to use proper type to hold the return from "syscall".
>>>
>>> The proper type is long long which works for both x86_64 and x32.
>>
>> Which specification location are we talking about?
>
> See the PSEUDO macro in .../linux/x86_64/sysdep.h.
I think we are talking about the C level constructs in this thread.
(And I think the x86-64 psABI should be updated to make the code you
referenced actually valid.)
Florian