From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 5 02:34:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EC116A417 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:34:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.193]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4604013C43E for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:34:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from c211-30-219-213.carlnfd3.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c211-30-219-213.carlnfd3.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.219.213]) by mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lB52YKLR009550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:34:22 +1100 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:34:20 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@delplex.bde.org To: Matthieu Michaud In-Reply-To: <47559FF0.5090008@nxdomain.fr> Message-ID: <20071205132138.J6892@delplex.bde.org> References: <47559FF0.5090008@nxdomain.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make struct timeval posix compliant ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:34:25 -0000 On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Matthieu Michaud wrote: > Few months ago I sent a mail to stable@freebsd.org in the hope to discuss > struct timeval posix conformance in RELENG_6. > > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1397BA88-CC55-4585-86CB-3BD08FBABEF5 > > Given the few answers, I may have targetted the wrong mailing list or this > change has no interest. So, here are the questions again : > > - Do you want FreeBSD 6 to conform posix specs for struct timeval ? (it's not > always a right thing to do to strictly conform standards) No, but I don't use FreeBSD-6. > - Is it ok to do it ? (if i'm correct there is a minor abi change and this > could be a strong reason to stay as is) It is a huge ABI breakage for arches with 64-bit longs and 32-bit time_t's (these seem to be only alpha, and i386 and powerpc with the not-really-supported correctly-sized longs). These could be ifdefed like arm already is (ugh). It is a minor API breakage/fix. Bruce