Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 20:29:06 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: grog@lemis.de, terry@lambert.org Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: elm problem - "solved" Message-ID: <199511180929.UAA17343@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511180929.UAA17343>