[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o99pl8es.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:04:59 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, tg@...bsd.de,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, x32@...ldd.debian.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
* Rich Felker:
>> If the compiler can handle the zeroing, that would be great, though not
>> sure how (some __attribute__((zero)) which generates a type constructor
>> for such structure; it kind of departs from what the C language offers).
>
> The compiler fundamentally can't. At the very least it would require
> effective type tracking, which requires shadow memory and is even more
> controversial than -fstrict-aliasing (because in a sense it's a
> stronger version thereof).
It's possible to do it with the right types. See _Bool on 32-bit Darwin
PowerPC for an example, which is four bytes instead of the usual one.
Similarly, we could have integer types with trap representations.
Whether it is a good idea is a different matter, but the amount of
compiler magic required is actually limited.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists