On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Warner Losh wrote:
>> > 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?
> Channeling my inner bde (maybe?), the typedef is probably helpful, but
> uintmax_t seems less so. uintmax_t has no guaranteed ABI, so a
> fixed-width type like uint64_t seems beter, assuming that uintmax_t is
> currently uint64_t everywhere (which I think is the case but did not
I'm not opposed to a typedef for this, bde suggested I just use
straight uintmax_t, so it's a good starting point for wider testing.
I'm fine with anything as long as it's guaranteed to be the largest
integer size (uintmax_t guarantees that, so any typedef of that is
sufficient for me).
Any name suggestions are appreciated, but what I want more than that
right now is testing. Hammer the hell out of this on as wide a
variety of platforms as anyone can, to make sure it doesn't break in
If typedefs are desired, it's no more work than a simple sed plus a
single added line. If this breaks anything, that's the bigger
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"