From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 12 06:04:47 2004 Return-Path: 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 2B90A16A4CE; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 06:04:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3B043D2F; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 06:04:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i6C64jJc025127; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:04:45 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040712055033.GA95729@elvis.mu.org> References: <20040712041539.GW95729@elvis.mu.org> <20040712045053.GY95729@elvis.mu.org> <20040712055033.GA95729@elvis.mu.org> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:04:45 -0400 To: Alfred Perlstein From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nevermind Re: allocating a spare from kinfo_proc. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 06:04:47 -0000 At 10:50 PM -0700 7/11/04, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >* Garance A Drosihn [040711 22:23] wrote: > > >* Alfred Perlstein [040711 21:15] wrote: > >> > > Are there any guidelines for adjusting this struct that I >> > > should be aware of? >> >> It would be nice to make sure that alignment issues are not wasting >> space on *any* of the platforms. When I made my recent changes to >> user.h, I had a program which printed out all the variables and >> their alignments. If I have time this week I will update that >> program and see what it says on the different hardware platforms. > >I think we're ok since sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) on all the >platforms I could test. And the compiler is likely to align >a new pointer in that location in the same spot as the array. > >At least it would make sense if it did. :) It should be fine. I just wanted to mention this issue as a "general guideline for adjusting this struct"... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu