Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition
Wookey <[email protected]> Thu, 5 Sep 2024 03:06:17 +0100
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.distributions |
|---|---|
| Organization | Wookware |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--7v2SkOxZkOkgWk1E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2024-09-04 17:48 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Dear all,=20 >=20 > in Gentoo Linux we want to change our CHOST triplets for 32-bit glibc sys= tems that use 64-bit time_t, since > this is technically an ABI change which breaks binary compatibility [1]. > * In an ideal world this change would be synchronized across distribution= s. Opinions? [5] Debian considered this issue over the last 18 months/2 years, and found very little enthusiasm for making new triplets. Every distro that is using 64-bit time (on 32-bit arches) just enabled the flags and changed the ABI without setting a new arch/triplet (or they have dropped 32-bit stuff entirely so sidestepped the issue). Given this, and because users would like to just be upgraded to 64-bit time, not have to install a new architecture, Debian and Ubuntu decided not to try and push a new triplet and do a library-name ABI update within the architecture(s). That went ahead between March and June this year and is now pretty-much done, modulo a few outstanding bugs (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[email protected]= ian.org;tag=3Dtime-t). Debian's thinking and status is summarised here: https://wiki.debian.org/Re= leaseGoals/64bit-time So it's interesting that in fact Gentoo _does_ want to do this, but it seems to me that this is now a done deal, and 'everyone' has already switched within the existing triplets, even Debian, which is the hardest place to do this because it involved 1100 library transitions, with another 3500-odd rebuilds. > [1] The ABI of glibc does technically NOT change, however, the type defin= ition of, e.g., time_t does. > And as soon as any other library includes that in its public interfac= es and data structures, that library > changes its ABI. > An example for an affected library (found real-world during testing) = is gnutls, see=20 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/828001 Yes. We did a big ABI analysis to find out how many libraries were affected (including LFS which glibc ties into this transition) and it was about 700. (there were quite a few more where the automated ABI tools failed and it was easier to do a transition than work out why, so we ended up transitioning 1093 source packages (https://people.canonical.com/~vorlon/armhf-time_t/source-packages). So yes it's an ABI change, but we don't always change the triplet for this, sometimes we just move the baseline along. This happened in the last for glibc 5->6 and libstdc++ v4 to v5 and the long-double redefinition in s390,alpha, sparc, powerpc. In fact, considering the whole-distro collective ABI, this happens every time there is an ABI change in a library. The arch/triplet remains the same, but the new release has a different ABI in some number of libraries and dependencies. So it's always a choice whether the triplet should change or it is just treated as an update, and usually the latter is chosen. This was a borderline case that could have gone either way, but people decided to do it as a transition, not a new triplet. Are you sure gentoo will gain enough value from going it alone here and defining a new triplet? Because every other distro will have (has already got in fact) the t64 ABI with the old triplet. > [2] We've brought up this issue previously, just somehow it never caught = momentum. See, e.g., > * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-November/143386.ht= ml > * https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-January/144963.html > A more detailed discussion of different possible approaches in Gentoo= can be found on a wiki page=20 > maintained by Sam, > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Toolchain/time64_migration > Discussions within Gentoo have led to the conclusion that a new CHOST= makes most sense, with > the old one staying at 32bit time_t for legacy binary support as depr= ecated option. >=20 > [3] https://bpa.st/HV6BS >=20 > [4] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-November/143386.html >=20 > [5] Note that this entire issue / proposal only affects 32bit architectur= es and distributions.=20 > For Gentoo this would be ix86, arm(32), hppa, mips(32), m68k, ppc(32). > riscv32 is special since from beginning it only has the 64bit time_t = interface. >=20 > --=20 > Andreas K. H=FCttel > [email protected] > Gentoo Linux developer=20 > (council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge Wookey --=20 Principal hats: Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ --7v2SkOxZkOkgWk1E Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEER4nvI8Pe/wVWh5yq+4YyUahvnkcFAmbZEhMACgkQ+4YyUahv nkeEWA//aFQSabQJcwsKBo7cdm3uB3ruyXkPEFtW0ky85hzYlE1HhDxm9gghasCN OrtC20KnXZlPk8f0LSXRVCYenfG8w7mJMI0sfVYaBP6mk+0BlQm8nxe9Gtn99s44 RLwaUa7FspWcwFbOxujDCJgedpxqMNU6lXoamQePlqeXGd4Pjkz8W+0+SlYStj/9 OYfThuPBOCUV3ODSSRX27nd33D+FxJa6AVJTlRNqlMM8szUJ5aIcf61gjf+je2p7 uQAe06ApBtx5MNKYbKSWTKvrvbNFwUkSXL4RqKpPb4fdMz4fWWKqqHtayzzT9XKV ZE4hq8q33fpM2cIJWEnAkfuu/F2R+byYMe7GwZS38VO4QX5t4T3vyyAzqlUp2twW nsAKe1r/5WqAUjTl5/A1pOTB80CK9KM6JB/n4z+58+aDjT4TrzymQCN5zkWzW0yf EWHUOx2MVdn1t2pn5odmnbaBu7vqLysCrwtE2bqpFe07vj9po7DIPeWvbo39yy+N rq/qSt/FUQ3hLWGCAmYHAenOwhtDfXz8AZfwUIvs88rrf+Z1NfeabpeygPg/zyH9 EXWemxV6qw/Sfk/+/kJJ1It804V6Qzh7rYIvGoDBcygMntVMYwYnXRDERtuoj0hZ 9WujFpjQ6/yvpDUyl28LqVZ5drumgRuOj1jmfXhunS9gHTU9BNI= =0JEa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7v2SkOxZkOkgWk1E--