On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 07:57:51PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
> > The thing is, absolute majority of callbacks really want a pointer to
> > some object. There is a handful of cases where we really want a genuine
> > number - not a pointer cast t
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 07:57:51PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
> > There's a bunch of related issues, some kernel, some gcc,
> > thus the Cc from hell on that one.
>
> I don't really see how this is a GCC question, rather I see this
> as a C
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
> Now, there's another question: how do we get there? Or, at least, from
> current void (*)(unsigned long) to void (*)(void *)...
I think the real solution should be
void (*function)(struct timer_list *timer);
and hand the timer itself
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 04:23:32AM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Dec 01, 2006, at 12:21:49, Al Viro wrote:
> >And that's where it gets interesting. It would be very nice to get to
> >the following situation:
> > * callbacks are void (*)(void *)
> > * data is void *
> > * instances can take void
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:29:32AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >While that is safe (modulo the portability constraint that affects much
> >more code than just timers), it ends up very inconvenient and leads to
> >lousy type safety.
>
> Understandable. I assume you are trying to get more type s
On Friday 01 December 2006 18:21, Al Viro wrote:
> There is a tempting
> possibility to do that gradually, with all intermediates still in working
> state, provided that on all platforms currently supported by the kernel
> unsigned long and void * are indeed passed the same way (again, only for
>
On Dec 01, 2006, at 12:21:49, Al Viro wrote:
And that's where it gets interesting. It would be very nice to get to
the following situation:
* callbacks are void (*)(void *)
* data is void *
* instances can take void * or pointer to object type
* a macro SETUP_TIMER(timer, func, data) sets ca
On 12/1/06, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's a bunch of related issues, some kernel, some gcc,
thus the Cc from hell on that one.
First of all, in theory the timers in kernel are done that way:
* they have callback of type void (*)(unsigned long)
* they have dat
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
There's a bunch of related issues, some kernel, some gcc,
thus the Cc from hell on that one.
I don't really see how this is a GCC question, rather I see this
as a C question which means this should have gone
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
> There's a bunch of related issues, some kernel, some gcc,
> thus the Cc from hell on that one.
I don't really see how this is a GCC question, rather I see this
as a C question which means this should have gone to either
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or
10 matches
Mail list logo
