On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 05:51:17PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 05:59:09AM +0000, Paul Richards wrote:
> > >
> > > Are expressions like ((uid_t)0-1) portable/safe ? Maybe that's a better
> > > way of approaching this.
> >
> > To get the all-1's number, maybe it's better to use ((uid_t)~0), but
> > that is a rather controversial topic anyway.
>
> That works, but on machines like the Alpha where longs are bigger
> than ints it only works by virtue of sign extension. Our existing
> headers seem to prefer ((uid_t)0-1). That's what is used in the
> i386's <machine/limits.h>.
My bummer, I thought the definition was the same in /sys/sys/types.h and
in /usr/include/sys/types.h -- and there I could see:
% cd /sys ; grep uid sys/* | grep type
sys/conf.h:typedef void devfs_create_t __P((dev_t dev, uid_t uid...
sys/types.h:typedef u_int32_t uid_t; /* user id */
% cd /usr/include ; grep uid sys/* | grep type
sys/conf.h:typedef void devfs_create_t __P((dev_t dev, uid_t uid...
sys/types.h:typedef u_int32_t uid_t; /* user id */
and I mistakenly assumed that both x86 and alpha's use uid_t's of 32
bits. What did I miss?
- Giorgos
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
