El mar, 01-07-2008 a las 22:14 -0400, Pavel Roskin escribió: > Hello! > > I wonder if we would be better off without grub_size_t. I cannot think > of any code that could use it legitimately. > > The ordinary size_t is used to represent the result of sizeof, i.e. size > of a structure. There is no need for grub to support data structures > exceeding 4 gigabytes. If we want to support more memory, that's fine, > but that would involve other types that can hold the pointer values, > such as long. I'm not sure if I'm getting you right. Are you suggesting that we "undo" the someinteger->size_t conversion that caused so many headaches in many 32->64 bit ports? Machine-dependant types like size_t and ptrdiff_t are here to help us, not to haunt us. What is the exact problem with size_t in GRUB right now? I agree that grub_size_t is redundant, though. > > size_t has different size on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, but we should > strive to make the userspace utilities work like the bootloader, so that > possible problems can be detected early and debugged easily. I didn't understand this. What do you mean with "US working like the bootloader?" > > Besides, we cannot even print size_t in grub_printf(), and I don't think > we should. 1. that can be worked out 2. why not? > > grub_size_t should be replaced with int or grub_uint32_t. size_t can be > used in pure userspace code to call functions that need it. >
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
