Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , > Doug > Rabson writes: > >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >> > >> So this is in addition to the uintptr_t definition of udev_t or > >> without it ? > > > >Its instead of it. > > Ok, just wanted to be clear. > >

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

In message , Doug Rabson writes: >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> >> So this is in addition to the uintptr_t definition of udev_t or >> without it ? > >Its instead of it. Ok, just wanted to be clear. >The e_tdev field seems to be the only dev_t in the >structure and since th

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > So this is in addition to the uintptr_t definition of udev_t or > without it ? Its instead of it. The e_tdev field seems to be the only dev_t in the structure and since this code is exporting values to userland, it ought to be converting to udev

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

So this is in addition to the uintptr_t definition of udev_t or without it ? Either way, I'll be in Rome for the rest of the week (in all likelyhood that is, the usual last-second gottchas have not been resolved yet :-) so I will not be able to test it myself. So if it works commit it. (If any

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , > Doug > Rabson writes: > >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >> In message , > >> Doug > >> Rabson writes: > >> >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Try it and tell me if it works..

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

In message , Doug Rabson writes: >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message , >> Doug >> Rabson writes: >> >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Try it and tell me if it works... >> > >> >Not good so far. In my test kernel which defines udev_t as ui

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , > Doug > Rabson writes: > >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >> > >> Try it and tell me if it works... > > > >Not good so far. In my test kernel which defines udev_t as uintptr_t, sh > >faults when init tries to go m

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

In message , Doug Rabson writes: >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> >> Try it and tell me if it works... > >Not good so far. In my test kernel which defines udev_t as uintptr_t, sh >faults when init tries to go multiuser. I'm worried about the sign extension from 32 to 64 bits..

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > Try it and tell me if it works... Not good so far. In my test kernel which defines udev_t as uintptr_t, sh faults when init tries to go multiuser. -- Doug Rabson Mail: d...@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd.

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

Try it and tell me if it works... In message , Doug Rabson writes: >On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> >> In message , John Polstra writes: >> >Revision 1.33 of src/sys/types.h, which changed dev_t to a void * in >> >the kernel, breaks ps and a bunch of other things on the alpha

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

On Mon, 17 May 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message , John Polstra writes: > >Revision 1.33 of src/sys/types.h, which changed dev_t to a void * in > >the kernel, breaks ps and a bunch of other things on the alpha. > >Since dev_t now has a different size in the kernel than in userland, >

Re: sys/types.h rev. 1.33 breaks ps etc. on alpha

In message , John Polstra writes: >Revision 1.33 of src/sys/types.h, which changed dev_t to a void * in >the kernel, breaks ps and a bunch of other things on the alpha. >Since dev_t now has a different size in the kernel than in userland, >ps and friends get a "proc size mismatch". Uhm... Ahh...