And the rest of us is watching and waiting for diffs to apply :)
It is like exiting movie - I have popcorn in front.
Culmination must be soon, I guess :)
//mxb
On 2015-06-26 19:09, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 26/06/15(Fri) 17:19, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:34:06PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 26/06/15(Fri) 16:00, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
2) I saw that you found some ALTQ leftovers, you have some Solaris
(2) I think ALTQs leftovers are still in CVS repo, will double check
anyway. Stack alignment is not Solaris compatibility hack it's sparc
compatibility. May be your C compiler takes care of this and grants
16/32/64 bit stack alignment. I have not examined build process
that closely yet.
By "Solaris compatibility" I'm referring to the size of ``sa_family_t''
and the corresponding changes in "struct pfr_table".
I see. sa_family_t is kind of surprise it's defined as uint16_t on Solaris.
PF at various places mixes sa_family_t with u_int8_t, so all af variables
on Solaris had to be turned to sa_family_t. Some of those changes leaked
backed during merge to current.
Even if on OpenBSD sa_family_t is defined as uint8_t, I'd argue that
for portability reasons we should use the correct type where it is
appropriate. And here your "leak" is a good example of portability.
If you have some changes that could improve the portability of the
software and if you feel like sharing them, I'd be interested.
Regards,
Martin