Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:06:16 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... Message-ID: <863brqy41j.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <84dead7205061001534b9385b3@mail.gmail.com> (Joseph Koshy's message of "Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:23:21 %2B0530") References: <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <p0621025fbeceac0673f8@128.113.24.47> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com> <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead7205061001534b9385b3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > > 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. > I'd be very surprised if two C structures with identical definitions > were not assignment compatible. I wouldn't be surprised if the standard says they aren't. Unfortunately, my copy is at home. > The code in question would have > changed (to something like what it is now) had the MD struct changed > in the future. Of course, but you wouldn't be able to run an old userland on a new kernel. I thought that was (much of) the point of separating MI from MD. Please fix your MUA to attribute what it quotes. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?863brqy41j.fsf>