lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:19:44 -0700 From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com> To: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org> Subject: Re: PATCH [3/n]: Add __snseconds_t and __SNSECONDS_T_TYPE On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu> wrote: > On 03/15/2012 01:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> What is the real consequence of using long long on tv_nsec, >> except for not POSIX compliant? Will it lead to wrong code? > > It would break applications that do anything like this: > > struct timespec t; > long *p = &t->tv_nsec; > > Such applications work fine now and conform to POSIX, but would GCC will complain about "incompatible pointer type". > either not compile or (worse) might compile and do the > wrong thing, if tv_nsec were wider than 'long'. We had a discussion on Linux kernel mailing list: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/8/408 We thought it was OK to have long long on tv_nsec. -- H.J. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists