Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:56:54 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: mdf@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: replace vm_offset_t with uintptr_t and vm_size_t with size_t Message-ID: <20100812195654.GB2978@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik_2pXA1LP9dq-iOLkFrQBG7jP=4yUXBjtDOBF3@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTik_2pXA1LP9dq-iOLkFrQBG7jP=4yUXBjtDOBF3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Matthew, * mdf@FreeBSD.org <mdf@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Looking over the arch-specific definitions, using uintptr_t and size_t > would not affect the actual width of these sizes. However, it would > simplify e.g. conformant printf(9) statements, since there is an > approved specifier for size_t and, while there isn't one for > uintptr_t, ptrdiff_t is pretty close (Bruce, is there a better > specifier)? Not that I know any architecture we support which does this, but what happens if userspace has a larger address space than kernelspace? Say, we ever have some kind of architecture with a 32-bit kernel running 64-bit userspace applications. --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxkUgYACgkQ52SDGA2eCwV55ACeNavLAwupiKUZa/1IUxlmUZq+ YBIAnjLcRCsPKYC33kUVcAhl5wqy51KR =sEuH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100812195654.GB2978>