On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 09:45:07PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> What's the definition of mach_msg_type_t? I have the Hurd sources, but
> not Mach sources, around.
typedef struct {
unsigned int msgt_name : 8,
msgt_size : 8,
msgt_number : 12,
msgt_inline : 1,
msgt_longform : 1,
msgt_deallocate : 1,
msgt_unused : 1;
} mach_msg_type_t;
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 01:59:56AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > ok, here is some hard data. It turns out that the comparison:
> > > *(int *) &msg.error.err_type == *(int *) &inttype
>
> Can you rewrite this without using the ugly explicit casts? If you
> want the first member foo (which is an integer) on both sides, you
> could simply write
>
> msg.error.err_type.foo == inttype.foo
>
> Both foo:s must be of type int, although the explicit casts won't give
> you any warnings if they aren't. If they really are, I think it's a
> compiler error if you don't get the same results (the casts are ok,
> and the address-of operator should force the C compiler to allocate
> the objects the way one would expect). But a const static declaration
> and no use of the address-of operator would give the compiler more
> freedom to not allocate storage for inttype in the usual way.
As you can see, the goal is to compare all fields, and they all fit into a
single 32bit int, which is why it can load the whole struct into a register
and make the comparison.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
