On Friday 17 July 2015 19:50:42 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:33:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 17 July 2015 14:37:41 Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, that was where my thinking was going. You should then be able to
> > > make the else case expose a 32 bit version under a different name so
> > > applications that really wanted to be able to do fallback on old kernels
> > > could do so but the default would DTRT.
>
> > I'm unsure if that would actually help anybody: The new version would
> > only be seen for applications that are built with a 64-bit time_t,
> > and that requires a new kernel for a number of reasons. It might
> > help bridge the window between kernels that have support for basic
> > syscalls but not a particular ioctl like this one, but approach so
> > far was that I'd just treat that case as a bug and tell people to
> > not expect 64-bit time_t in user space to work in all cases until
> > we have a kernel that has all drivers converted.
>
> Yeah, it's definitely a bit niche. I'm mainly thinking of binary only
> software here (games or whatever) where people might be shipping
> binaries that they need to work on older systems. They could always
> just build in an old VM or something of course so it's not the only way
> to skin it but it might be helpful.
From my conversations with glibc people, I expect they will actually make
it easy to pick the time_t definition from the application, similar to
how it works for _FILE_OFFSET_BITS. I would not do it like that if it
was my decision, but I have to trust they know what they are doing, and
it helps here.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
