> On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeed...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Attempted to send this yesterday, but appears it didn't go through.  
> Apologies if it really did go through).
> As part of a project getting FreeBSD on the Freescale P5020 SoC, I increased 
> the width of resources, from u_long(32 bits on 32-bit archs, 64 bits on 
> 64-bit archs) to uintmax_t (currently 64 bits on all archs).  I have it 
> working on PowerPC, but have not tested it on any other architecture, I have 
> no other systems to test it with, so I need help.  This passes a tinderbox 
> build.  I need this tested on other archs, the more the better, especially 
> i386, including PAE.
> It should be effectively a no-op on most architectures, especially 64-bit 
> archs, though there were some checks I found in x86 code clamping address 
> checks to under 4GB, commented as necessary purely for rman.  If this isn't 
> the case, and we can't yet handle the checks being removed, they can go in, 
> but that needs testing.  It should apply cleanly to recent head.

I like the idea. There’s nothing offensive enough in the diffs to comment upon 
here (though I suppose I could see a few spots one could quibble over if one 
were so inclined).

I wonder, though, why not make its own typedef, even if it is just ‘typedef 
man_res_t uintmax_t;’ in the rman headers?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to