From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 19 18:50:29 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931)
	id 19B6437B401; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:50:29 -0500
From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org>
To: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru>
Message-ID: <20030419205028.A78458@FreeBSD.org>
References: <20030420011039.GC52081@snark.ratmir.ru>
	<20030420013400.GB52428@snark.ratmir.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20030420013400.GB52428@snark.ratmir.ru>;
	from alexs@ratmir.ru on Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:34:00AM +0400
Organisation: The FreeBSD Project <http://FreeBSD.org>
X-Alternate-Addresses: <jmallett@NewGold.NET>, <juli@jerkcity.com>,
	<flata@toxic.magnesium.net>, <jmallett@OpenDarwin.org>, <juli@arcti.ca>
X-Towel: Yes
X-Negacore: Yes
X-Title: Code Maven
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost: juli pwned teh intarweb
cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
cc: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@snark.ratmir.ru>
Subject: Re: /bin/sh and 32-bit arithmetics [CORRECTED]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Standards compliance <freebsd-standards.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-standards@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 01:50:29 -0000

* De: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru> [ Data: 2003-04-19 ]
	[ Subjecte: Re: /bin/sh and 32-bit arithmetics [CORRECTED] ]
> ...ghmmm... sorry and sorry... and here the patch, it is pretty small:

At a cursory glance:  You are using quad_t (barf) formats for what
is intmax_t, you really want to use %j<qual> not %q<qual>, and you
may be doing more work than is necessary.  Simply switching to
"long" in place of "int" for everything (and LONG_ vs INT_) may be
a better start than using intmax_t?  intmax_t may be very slow,
for some operations, and you may still have 128-bit intmax_t on
a system with 64-bit long and 32-bit int, and 64-bit intmax_t on
a system with 32-bit long and int, and 64-bit long long, thus an
argument along the lines of "long makes the integer size gain a
non-normalised thing" would be bogus, I think.  A better argument
might be for building i386 with 64-bit long (ha ha ha), and that
seems what you want- a wider type on a sucky architecture ;)
As for the INTMAX_LEN or whatnot, that's bogusish.  There are ways
of (at run time) deducing the maximum size of a buffer for a
<fooint>, probably you can shove them into some init routine that
sh surely has.

Also, I don't know how we feel about C++/C99 style comments in
the base system.

Thanx,
juli (who imagines bde would have better advice.)
-- 
juli mallett. email: jmallett@freebsd.org; aim: bsdflata; efnet: juli;