christos@ wrote: > | So you are a person who are just interested in correctness > | but ignoring readabilty (no one can see why one uses normal > | assignments and others uses stream). Why don't you change > | the cksum assignment to convert via void * pointer? > > Why does everything have to be personalized and turned into an > argument? "I" am not interested in correctness and ignoring > readability,
You don't think consistently using uint16_t assingments is not necessary. I think it's necessary to explicitly describe how cksum should be caluclated and written. Both are personal opinions, and I don't think there is a "right" answer. > "I" am trying to come with a mutually amicable solution. > "The compiler" does not like the current state of affairs. As I said such "best or nothing" strategy is not necessary in such MD code, especially for netbsd-7 (-fno-strict-ailasing is enough). You always want complete solusion. These are also personal opinions. > | Anyway, you are claiming TierII users can't choose implementation > | while our port page claims they have responsibility. > | I've been really tired and lost my motivation. > | Sorry. > > Again, this is not a confrontation. Let's do the following: > > Since you have the hardware and it is easiest for you, can > you please make a disk image of the resulting boot block and > put it up somewhere. Then I will take the MD installboot bits > and migrate them to the MI installboot and make sure that the > MI installboot binary produces the same disk image. Then you > can test. > > Does this sound reasonable? Sounds unlikely for netbsd-7. I'm afraid you don't read how the MD installboot.c does weird operations at all. --- Izumi Tsutsui