> > 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? Warner
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail