Re: [PATCH] ppc64 utmp changes

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 03:44:58AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> > That we certainly can't. We have to keep it for Alpha and IA-64 for sure.
>> 
>> Right, the always-64 platforms.  I would be happier with a new sysdeps
>> macro for 64-bit platforms saying whether they have 32-bit-compatible file
>> formats, just defined in some other file, and not having bits/utmp{x,}.h
>> copied.  It could be a macro just about utmp in an extra tiny bits/ header,
>> or it could be in bits/wordsize.h something like __WORDSIZE_COMPAT32 and
>> perhaps be used by other such cases if they come up. i.e.
>
> I think in bits/wordsize.h would be best.
>
>> #if __WORDSIZE == 64 && defined __WORDSIZE_COMPAT32
>> struct { __int32_t ... }
>> #else
>> struct timeval ...;
>> #endif
>> 
>> > I think we can not-too-painfully change it for sparc64.
>> > Dunno about x86-64 and s390x.
>> 
>> It's sounding like everyone is saying that breaking the existing 64-bit
>> file formats for all these platforms is ok.  Either people just don't care,
>> or those file formats have never really been used by 64-bit programs.  If
>> either of those is so, does that mean that noone cares about or ever used
>> the various struct utmp-using ABIs either?  Can we really change these ABIs
>> (the size and layout of struct utmp) without versioning?
>
> For sparc64 it can be changed without versioning, Ben, do you agree?
> For x86-64, as Andreas said, I believe everybody can recompile glibc
> and recompile those few programs which access wtmp etc. files directly
> (SysVinit, anything else?) and > /var/log/wtmp.

I agree but I'd like to see this change then also in the glibc 2.2
tree...

> ppc64 initiated this, so is ok with this change too.
> The only question is s390x, Martin?


Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj