patacongo commented on issue #8869: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/issues/8869#issuecomment-1478725972
> so I was thinking about use cases for systems that do not have `CONFIG_HAVE_LONG_LONG` (about if 4 realtime signals would be enough). Using `uint64_t` for sigset will hide a lot of work behind the scene (done by the compiler) and modification to existing code would be minimal plus compiler can insert assembler if ISA can deal natively with 64 bit values, so I was considering this only from such perspective. That is reasonable. There is no one using those retro platforms that do not support long long now. They might in the future, however. But my experience is that we always have to resuscitate the less often used platforms when they have not been used for awhile. > Going with `uint32_t [2]` array is obviously the most portable solution. I don't think this has much effect on code outside of the signal set logic. But it would require a rather trivial modification to all signal set manipulation functions to break a signal number into an index and bit number via a macro. This biggest impact that I know is where the avoids the standard signal set functions. For example using ALL_SIGNAL_SET as an initialize vs. calling sigfillset(); -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
