From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 18 01:34:11 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA05682 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 01:34:11 -0800 Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA05641 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 01:33:57 -0800 Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA17343; Sat, 18 Nov 1995 20:29:06 +1100 Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 20:29:06 +1100 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199511180929.UAA17343@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: grog@lemis.de, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: elm problem - "solved" Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> > I really have great difficulty understanding why this change was made. >> > It means that old FreeBSD and BSD/386 binaries won't work correctly >> > under FreeBSD or BSD/OS Versions 2. I can't see any advantage at all >> > in this change. Grrrr. >> >> Think packing on RISC systems. You put the largest followed by the >> smallest to reduce the copyin overhead. >Think reality. short=2 bytes. long=4 bytes for all the systems we're >talking about. The only 8-byte constraint in most RISC systems is for >doubles on the Sparc architecture--I don't know for sure for other >RISCs. Can you point to more restrictive constraints? off_t is 8 bytes in BSD4.4, and it should be 64-bit aligned for almost any 64-bit machine. Bruce