Correct ioctl(2) interface definition for musl/ppc64 #1097
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
@bors: r+ Thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 6d9c681 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2018
Correct ioctl(2) interface definition for musl/ppc64
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
workingjubilee
added a commit
to workingjubilee/libc
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2021
This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR rust-lang#289, PR rust-lang#301, or PR rust-lang#1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints.
workingjubilee
added a commit
to workingjubilee/libc
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2021
This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR rust-lang#289, PR rust-lang#301, or PR rust-lang#1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 25, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2021
Fix mips64-musl ioctl consts to c_int This arch was overlooked or unspecified in earlier PRs that fixed c_ulong to c_int for ioctl.h consts for musl, see PR #289, PR #301, or PR #1097 for such prior art, however these are still args to fn ioctl on mips64-musl, which is expecting c_ints. Some numbers acquired casts to reflect the fact the data is being used and (so should be written as) an unsized bitfield, even if the value is greater than i32::MAX. Currently rustc is not building on mips64-linux-musl because of this error.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.