From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 28 12:28:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8AC37B401; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-233-125-100.client.attbi.com [12.233.125.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2ED443FF5; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:28:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA32172; Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:28:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: <20030628153032.GA577@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: deischen@freebsd.org cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE: fuword/suword bugs on ia64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:28:18 -0000 we also need a fuptr and suptr for pointers. On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:06:02AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > > I've started runtime testing and ran into ILP32/LP64 bugs. Attached > > > a patch that solve the first problems without affecting i386. The > > > patch is intended to illustrate the problem more than it suggest a > > > solution. I'm more than happy to test alternative solutions. > > > Note that the use of uint32_t instead of unsigned int is mostly > > > to mirror the use of fuword32/suword32... > > > > I don't have any problem with the patch. Is there another > > solution you'd rather see, perhaps using 64bit values? > > I was thinking about using long. fuword/suword is defined in terms > of long, so technically it's a bug to have them operate on int. But > using long will yield 64-bit fields on 64-bit platforms, and it may > just be a waste of space. Although internal alignment and padding > may already take up as much space (tm_flags, km_version, km_flags > are examples of this). > > I'm divided on the issue. I prefer using long for it being the best > native type, but don't like the immediate consequence of it being > too variable for use in interface types (take for example the 64-bit > long on i386 that bde is playing with). With the patch I favored > the fixed width property on uint32_t. > > -- > Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >