From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 10 07:44:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACEE16A41F; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:44:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3649743D48; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:44:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F45F60F8; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:44:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B79A60F2; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:44:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 160E633C3B; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:44:32 +0200 (CEST) To: Joseph Koshy References: <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:44:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com> (Joseph Koshy's message of "Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:46:13 +0530") Message-ID: <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -5.1/5.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on tim.des.no Cc: current@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosehn Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:44:38 -0000 Joseph Koshy writes: > I don't understand why that particular warning was generated i > in the first place, the cast was between two structures with > identical layout, differing only in name. The warning is correct. Two identical types with different names are not the same type unless one is a direct or indirect typedef for the other. It also seems strange to me that you on the one hand introduce a new struct to separate MD and MI interfaces, and on the other hand continue to assume that they are assignment-compatible. The code the tinderbox complained about would break badly if you extended the MD struct without recompiling userland (old userland on new kernel); now it won't, which I believe was the point. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no