On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 11:47 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 11/5/2024 8:35 PM, Byron Ellacott wrote: > > Hi Takashi, > > > >> ideally, we should use int64_t for all targets unconditionally, IMO. > >> however, in practice, 64-bit integers don't seem available for some of > >> our targets. (ez80, z8, z16) > >> maybe someone can add 64-bit integer support to their toolchains. but > >> i suppose we don't want to wait for it to happen. > >> > > No, you wouldn't want to wait for that, it's highly unlikely that ZDS-II > > will ever get a substantial update and the community compiler options > > all have their own issues and limitations. Much as I'd love to say that the > > unofficial (e)Z80 clang target solves all problems, it's a few major > > versions behind llvm now and my ELF patch for it is likewise not current - > > it'd be a bit of effort for someone to actually use this option. > > ZDS-II is no longer an option anyway. Changes in function prototypes > and definitions of data types has made ZDS-II unusable (and that is > really probably OK). Recent eZ80 builds have used an experimental > version of GCC.
does that GCC have int64_t? > zNEO (z16) and z8 are no long supportable without ZDS-II. Other z80s > don't work with common small compilers like SDCC anymore. i guess people who care these targets should express what they want wrt this time_t discussion. eg. * drop 32-bit time_t and leave these targets broken * keep uint32_t time_t as a user-visible option * make it depend on CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG or such * something else?
