From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 12 04:33:40 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44188B6D for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from maul.immure.com (108-84-10-9.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.84.10.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EAC5208 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rancor.immure.com ([10.1.132.9]) by maul.immure.com with esmtp (Exim 4.85 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1YLlSr-0004f9-UB; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:33:31 -0600 Received: from rancor.immure.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rancor.immure.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1C4XLta006113; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:33:21 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from bob@rancor.immure.com) Received: (from bob@localhost) by rancor.immure.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id t1C4XLow006112; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:33:21 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from bob) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:33:21 -0600 From: Bob Willcox To: Erich Dollansky Message-ID: <20150212043321.GD840@rancor.immure.com> Reply-To: Bob Willcox References: <20150201175159.7fa88d16@B85M-HD3-0.alogt.com> <20150203003307.GG27103@funkthat.com> <20150210231440.GB471@rancor.immure.com> <20150212091323.245485ba@B85M-HD3-0.alogt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150212091323.245485ba@B85M-HD3-0.alogt.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 10.1.132.9 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bob@immure.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on maul.immure.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Subject: Re: top, fixed buffer length in utils.c X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on maul.immure.com) Cc: John-Mark Gurney , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:33:40 -0000 On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:13:23AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:14:41 -0600 > Bob Willcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:33:07PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > Erich Dollansky wrote this message on Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 17:51 > > > +0800: > > > > int can be 64 bits on a amd64 machine. Why is the author of this > > > > code so sure that we will never cross the 32 bit boundary? > > > > > > Per others, int is currently 32bits on all platforms we support... > > > > > > I guess adding: > > > CTASSERT(sizeof(int) <= 4); > > > > > > would help fix your concern? at least now the expectation is > > > codified and if it breaks, the build will break.. > > > > > > -- > > > John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 > > > 5579 > > > > > > > If/when the size of an int ever changes from being 32 bits, top will > > be the least of our worries! > > > if all dubious statements have asserts in place, nothing will be a > worry until then. > > It is a very bad idea to assume a size for any type when the size can > change between compilers. > > If you want, just read the old discussion regarding time_t. Oh, I've been around since ints were 8 bits (on really old stuff) and appreciate the issues. However my point wasn't that assuming the size is good, but that when ints change we will have lots more serious breakage is all. Bob -- Bob Willcox | You climb to reach the summit, but once bob@immure.com | there, discover that all roads lead down. Austin, TX | -- Stanislaw Lem, "The Cyberiad"