Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-04-04 09:16:17) > Hello, > > Flavio Cruz, on Sun 03 Apr 2016 16:12:48 +0200, wrote: > > mach_msg_type_name_t and mach_msg_type_size_t are used as 8 bit fields in > > mach_msg_type_t struct, therefore they should be treated as unsigned char's > > to > > avoid warnings when using macros such as MACH_MSG_TYPE_POLYMORPIC. > > Mmm, looking quickly at the mach code shows that there is a "long" > variant of these fields, see for instance ipc_kmsg_clean_body() which > uses a mach_msg_type_long_t
I don't see a problem with that for mach_msg_type_name_t. The long form is used if e.g. an array is transmitted with a size that cannot be expressed with mach_msg_type_t, but there cannot be at type that doesn't fit in 8 bits afaics. If we restrict mach_msg_type_size_t to 8 bits, we limit the size a single object in an array can have even for the long form. (Obligatory rant: Why is the size of an element expressed in bits even though the code everywhere in Mach assumes it to be a multiple of eight and pads it accordingly? Something to fix for Mach5...) Justus
