Re: switching ARC to 64-bit time_t (Re: [RFC v6 07/23] RISC-V: Use 64-bit time_t and off_t for RV32 and RV64)
- To: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
- Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Helmut Grohne <helmutg@debian.org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>, Zong Li <zongbox@gmail.com>, debian-arm@lists.debian.org, Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@wdc.com>, Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>, arcml <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
- Subject: Re: switching ARC to 64-bit time_t (Re: [RFC v6 07/23] RISC-V: Use 64-bit time_t and off_t for RV32 and RV64)
- From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:46:56 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] mvmpne4xqpb.fsf@suse.de>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20200224100051.2511d797@jawa> (Lukasz Majewski's message of "Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:00:51 +0100")
- References: <cover.1578824547.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <4e95f95966d8d7c6a8339160dc62d81c1f6a1bfb.1578824547.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <00574bfb-981a-3a1c-cbdf-b2fee4eddc32@gmail.com> <CAKmqyKMyf2psPp+-EHoidvbPbSXv0=dP26GjVQnT5BUriLc1gA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2002120123230.3988@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKmqyKOgFRfMOws_-48GqMnuS3ygmN9A4DzLg6UtEjRXVoM82A@mail.gmail.com> <8a9784b3-fc52-adc3-4595-33142b059388@synopsys.com> <20200220001136.2f14236e@jawa> <[🔎] CAK8P3a1b73K+RjfHONWLy_dFUucXxwd+0jTnHmkf6YqwRjit4w@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20200220103716.2f526933@jawa> <[🔎] CAK8P3a2n6fRm4C5Ywyk5ys92jSOAc5SwvBVZyFOY9=4rB2pyjw@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20200224100051.2511d797@jawa>
On Feb 24 2020, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> elf/check-localplt complains about the newly added symbols
>>
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __lutimes64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __wait4_time64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __setitimer64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __utime64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __timerfd_gettime64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __clock_settime64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __utimes64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __gettimeofday64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __clock_gettime64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __futimesat64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __clock_getres64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __futimes64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __futimens64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __utimensat64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __getrusage64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __timespec_get64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __getitimer64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __ppoll64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __timerfd_settime64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __clock_nanosleep_time64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __sched_rr_get_interval64
>> Extra PLT reference: libc.so: __settimeofday64
>> Extra PLT reference: librt.so: __timer_gettime64
>> Extra PLT reference: librt.so: __mq_timedreceive_time64
>> Extra PLT reference: librt.so: __mq_timedsend_time64
>> Extra PLT reference: librt.so: __timer_settime64
>>
>
> The above problems are somewhat expected. Those are redirected symbols,
> which are exported as GLIBC_PRIVATE in several Versions files.
>
> I do guess that we will have a consensus if we add those as a "normal"
> exported symbols or keep them "private".
They need to grow hidden aliases.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
Reply to: