On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, [utf-8] Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, [utf-8] Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
s/to remove the warning/to actually work/
Please be precise :-).
s/to remove the warning ... on 64-bit platforms/to avoid undefined behaviour
on platforms where size_t is not u_int, and to avoid having to make a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
delicate analysis to show that the behaviour is defined and correct on
all other platforms/.
Delicate analysis:
...
you left out the case where size_t is larger than unsigned int, i.e. all
64-bit platforms. Even if the stack is aligned to the size of size_t,
you will get interesting results on a big-endian system.
Nope. This is a trivial subcase of a case that I didn't leave out.
Platforms where size_t is not u_int includes all platforms where size_t
is larger than u_int spelled verbosely. This is not all 64-bit
platforms, but some 64-bit platforms including all 64-bit platforms
supported by FreeBSD.
I think stack alignment gives uninteresting results in practice even
on big-endian systems, since the least significant bytes normally end
up in the place where a type pun will see them by going through a
register. This is most obvious if they are passed in a register, which
can happen even for variadic args -- then endianness has no significant
effect. I think lots of code still depends on the alignment to make
things sort of work.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
