On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > On Nov 15, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > (Attempted to send this yesterday, but appears it didn't go through. > > Apologies if it really did go through). > > > > As part of a project getting FreeBSD on the Freescale P5020 SoC, I > > increased the width of resources, from u_long(32 bits on 32-bit archs, 64 > > bits on 64-bit archs) to uintmax_t (currently 64 bits on all archs). I > > have it working on PowerPC, but have not tested it on any other > > architecture, I have no other systems to test it with, so I need help. > > This passes a tinderbox build. I need this tested on other archs, the more > > the better, especially i386, including PAE. > > > > It should be effectively a no-op on most architectures, especially 64-bit > > archs, though there were some checks I found in x86 code clamping address > > checks to under 4GB, commented as necessary purely for rman. If this isn't > > the case, and we can't yet handle the checks being removed, they can go in, > > but that needs testing. It should apply cleanly to recent head. > > I like the idea. There’s nothing offensive enough in the diffs to comment > upon here (though I suppose I could see a few spots one could quibble over if > one were so inclined). > > I wonder, though, why not make its own typedef, even if it is just > ‘typedef man_res_t uintmax_t;’ in the rman headers?
Channeling my inner bde (maybe?), the typedef is probably helpful, but uintmax_t seems less so. uintmax_t has no guaranteed ABI, so a fixed-width type like uint64_t seems beter, assuming that uintmax_t is currently uint64_t everywhere (which I think is the case but did not verify). -Ben _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
