Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Peter Memishian wrote: >> > I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. >> > > Are you suggesting that I just drop this issue on the floor, >> and abandon > the attempt to clean this up? >> >> I'm suggesting that we placate lint through whatever means necessary, >> but >> keep the existing signature and semantics of the macros. When we have >> more time, other things like having the macros check for malformed >> messages could be investigated. That work would need to include either >> collecting data demonstrating that adding those checks will still >> yield a >> stable DEBUG system, or fixing bugs so that the system remains stable. >> Only with the checks in-place would I feel comfortable changing the >> macros >> to return unsigned values, but even then I question the point, as I'm >> unaware of a pressing need to have a single mblk with 2^31 bytes of >> data. >> > > So, doing the math in unsigned integers, and then casting back to a > signed type would be OK, right? E.g. > > #define MBLKL(mp) (intptr_t)((uintptr_t)(mp)->b_wptr - > (uintptr_t)(mp)->b_rptr)) > > Despite what the man page says, I don't want to cast to an (int), > because that would represent loss of data, where the old code didn't > lose it. > > -- Garrett > > >
So the new webrev is posted at http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gdamore/mblkl/ once I get confirmation, especially from meem, then I'll go ahead and submit the RTI. -- Garrett _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
