On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, George Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:36 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > On 14.03.2024 00:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > Xen makes assumptions about the size of integer types on the various > > > architectures. Document these assumptions. > > > > This all reads as if we required exact widths. Is that really the case? > > At least one thing here is that *all compilers on the architecture* > need to have the same idea. If not, we absolutely need to change > "unsigned int" to "uint32_t" in any public interface.
Minor NIT to say "all compilers we intend to support on the architecture". I am sure there are compilers that don't respect these assumptions out there but we won't support them. > A second thing is not only assumptions about minimum number of bits, > but about storage size and alignment. Again, if we don't assume that > "unsigned int" is exactly 4 bytes, then we should go through and > change it to "uint32_t" anywhere that the size or alignment matter. Yes, exactly. Actually I forgot to add the alignment information. I'll do that in the next version of the patch.
