From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 21 18:44:15 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E47A16A4CE for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:44:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBB143D54 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:44:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from runaround.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20872; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:43:55 -0700 (MST) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20041221114103.053aa0b8@localhost> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:43:53 -0700 To: Pete French , colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk From: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.2.20041219181710.062cde10@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will there be a 5.3.1? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:44:15 -0000 It's the C language. While it's claimed to be "portable," it really doesn't address integer size and endianism well enough. Oddly enough, even FORTRAN did a better job. You could declare a variable to be INTEGER*4 and that would be that, regardless of architecture. Which ports were causing you headaches? --Brett At 04:17 AM 12/21/2004, Pete French wrote: >> I'd really like to see support for the AMD64 architecture become rock solid, >> too, because 64 bit Athlons are starting to sell at great prices. > >Sadly I went back to running i386 on my AMD64's - not because of problems >with FreeBSD, but because of problems with ports. It seems that theres a lot >of code out there assuming sizeof(int) = sizeof(long). Which is a shame (and >also depresses me after living through identical problems with the 16->32 >switch. You might have thought people would heave learnt) > >-pcf.