path: root/arch/arm/bits/limits.h
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2019-10-17define LONG_MAX via arch alltypes.h, strip down bits/limits.hRich Felker-7/+0
LLONG_MAX is uniform for all archs we support and plenty of header and code level logic assumes it is, so it does not make sense for limits.h bits mechanism to pretend it's variable. LONG_BIT can be defined in terms of LONG_MAX; there's no reason to put it in bits. by moving LONG_MAX definition to __LONG_MAX in alltypes.h and moving LLONG_MAX out of bits, there are now no plain-C limits that are defined in the bits header, so the bits header only needs to be included in the POSIX or extended profiles. this allows the feature test macro logic to be removed from the bits header, facilitating a long-term goal of getting such logic out of bits. having __LONG_MAX in alltypes.h will allow further generalization of headers. archs without a constant PAGESIZE no longer need bits/limits.h at all.
2017-02-22allow page size to vary on armRich Felker-1/+0
the ABI for arm was silently changed at some point to allow page sizes other than 4k; traditional binaries built with only 4k-aligned offsets between load segments cannot run on such systems, but newer binutils versions use 64k offset alignment. while larger page size is undesirable for various reasons, users have encountered hardware and/or kernels that lock the page size to a larger value, so follow the new ABI and allow it to vary.
2012-05-22fix missing _BSD_SOURCE support in bits/*.hRich Felker-1/+1
this is actually rather ugly, and would get even uglier if we ever want to support further feature test macros. at some point i may factor the bits headers into separate files for C base, POSIX base, and nonstandard extensions (the only distinctions that seem to matter now) and then the logic for which to include can go in the main header rather than being duplicated for each arch. the downside of this is that it would result in more files having to be opened during compilation, so as long as the ugliness does not grow, i'm inclined to leave it alone for now.
2011-09-18initial commit of the arm portRich Felker-0/+8
this port assumes eabi calling conventions, eabi linux syscall convention, and presence of the kernel helpers at 0xffff0f?0 needed for threads support. otherwise it makes very few assumptions, and the code should work even on armv4 without thumb support, as well as on systems with thumb interworking. the bits headers declare this a little endian system, but as far as i can tell the code should work equally well on big endian. some small details are probably broken; so far, testing has been limited to qemu/aboriginal linux.