Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 May 2008 17:17:31 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] asm-generic/int-ll64.h: always provide __{s,u}64 |
| |
Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:51:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Adrian Bunk wrote: >>>> If it is going to be unconditionally offered, we could get rid of >>>> __BYTEORDER_HAS_U64__ as a next step. Unless there is something I've >>>> missed. >>> Why do we need the byteorder headers in userspace at all? >>> >> Because Linux-specific software has depended on them for over 15 years >> (they are a much better API than anything POSIX provides.) We can't >> just yank them, and so it's better if they actually work. >> >> Yes, you can argue it should be glibc's job to provide them, but well, >> why duplicate work when we already have a nicely working set. > > The worst thing is how many CONFIG_'s they currently leak to userspace. > > And e.g. the versions in the x86 header are therefore not the fastest > ones (unless the userspace software #define's CONFIG_X86_BSWAP)... >
This is a valid point. This should be __i486__ for userspace, which is gcc's way to tell you if you're compiling with -march=i486.
-hpa
| |