From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 31 07:55:32 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B018216A403 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:55:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from caelian@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8B613C441 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:55:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from caelian@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so459801nfc for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:55:31 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MrVgoER6aHP3sAYIYKtreb6SRR4v9JiKWmijTNkhxvST4Pasl9NCSzoRkxxitgeY5GSj4VCA5JL+GgZkZ3DP+KpvPXtgeSqtVU2XQKg/vIad5dZNQdpf2YQ+C3LZxbsQzJmAcAir3EQvKeYNIc7WUl0PzpoPQS12Q93TQ0Oce+c= Received: by 10.48.48.1 with SMTP id v1mr233058nfv.1170228631846; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:30:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from chekov.ufp.fli4l ( [87.166.102.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k23sm4975630nfc.2007.01.30.23.30.30; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:30:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45C04593.2090704@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:30:27 +0100 From: Pascal Hofstee User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b1 (X11/20061222) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: a question regarding X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:55:32 -0000 Hi, In a recent attempt in trying to clean up some compiler warnings in a GNUstep related project i came upon a case where the FreeBSD datatypes seemed to disagree with the Linux ones. Though this in itself is not unusual i do wonder if in this case the Linux definition isn't the more proper one. The definition in question is inside and involves struct shmid_ds.shm_segsz which seems to be defined as "int" whereas Linux defines this as "size_t". I understand these definitions are usually platform dependent but am wondering if Linux's size_t wouldn't be a more proper type for this field .. and if it would make sense to perhaps synchronize our datatypes used here with those used by Linux? With kind regards, -- Pascal Hofstee