Re: [ptxdist] year 2038 Toolchain

[Erwin Rol <mailinglists@erwinrol.com>]

On 5/24/24 12:19, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:04:24AM +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
>> On 5/24/24 10:41, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>
>>>> If I figure it out I'll let you guys know (so it can be added to the
>>>> official Toolchain)
>>>
>>> Rememember to define _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 too if it is not already
>>> defined. _TIME_BITS=64 is ineffective when _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=32 for
>>> Glibc policy reasons.
>>
>> I tried some things to convince the Toolchain project (latest gcc13 release)
>> to use those two defines, but without much luck. Sometimes parts complained
>> that there were duplicate declarations of (time) functions, with some other
>> tries it actually complained the the _FILE_OFFSET_BITS was missing for some
>> part, that I really don't understand because I added them always in pairs.
>>
>> So I believe it is just a bit too early for 100% year 2038 compliance at the
>> moment. Especially when it comes to C++/libstd++ there is also not much info
>> online.
>>
>> But the C part seems to work with the support ptxdist offers, and C++ has
>> always been some unwanted stepchild, especially now Rust is going to safe
>> the world :-)
> 
> So gcc-14 has a --enable-year2038 configure option, but I didn't test if it
> works.

Any ETA for a gcc14 ptxdist Toolchain ?

> But I don't know if that causes any API or ABI incompatibilities.
> The changelog says "Disable year2038 by default on 32-bit hosts.". That
> looks a bit suspicious to me.

Maybe make 2 specific 32bit toolchains, one with TIME_BITS=32 and one 
with TIME_BITS=64? So ppl (like me) can start testing the TIME_BITS=64 
version, and ppl that know for sure they do not care about y2038 can 
keep using the TIME_BITS=32 version ?

- Erwin