[LTP] [PATCH] Fix the 64-bit macro definition of mips architecture

[Viresh Kumar]

On 26-04-21, 16:28, sujiaxun wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2021/4/26 下午4:12, Viresh Kumar 写道:
> > On 26-04-21, 15:53, sujiaxun wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2021/4/26 下午3:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > On 26-04-21, 15:00, sujiaxun wrote:
> > > > > uos@uos-PC:~$ echo |gcc -dM -E - | grep -i arch
> > > > > #define _MIPS_ARCH "mips64r2"
> > > > > #define _MIPS_ARCH_MIPS64R2 1
> > > > > uos@uos-PC:~$ echo |gcc -dM -E - | grep -i mips64
> > > > > #define _MIPS_ISA _MIPS_ISA_MIPS64
> > > > > #define _MIPS_TUNE "mips64r2"
> > > > > #define _MIPS_TUNE_MIPS64R2 1
> > > > > #define _MIPS_ARCH "mips64r2"
> > > > > #define _MIPS_ARCH_MIPS64R2 1
> > > > > #define __mips64 1
> > > > > uos@uos-PC:~$ uname  -m
> > > > > mips64
> > > > > 
> > > > > The mips architecture gcc has no built-in __arch64__, only __mips64
> > > > > definitions. Of course, "__BITS_PER_LONG == 64" can also be used, but I
> > > > > think it is better to use __mips64 in the mips architecture.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, I will rather try to do what the kernel source code does, i.e.
> > > > use __BITS_PER_LONG here instead.
> > > > 
> > > I resubmitted a patch and changed "__arch64__" to "#if __BITS_PER_LONG ==
> > > 64", the link is: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20210426074812.27798-1-sujiaxun@uniontech.com
> > 
> > You should have cc'd me directly :(
> > 
> > I don't have that patch in my inbox..
> > 
> > Though the patch looks fine.
> > 
> Sorry, what should I do now?

Just reply to the email (without deleting any stuff), and add me in cc
and mention in the top of the email like.

+Viresh.

-- 
viresh