Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:13:23 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Bob Willcox <bob@immure.com> Cc: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top, fixed buffer length in utils.c Message-ID: <20150212091323.245485ba@B85M-HD3-0.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <20150210231440.GB471@rancor.immure.com> References: <20150201175159.7fa88d16@B85M-HD3-0.alogt.com> <20150203003307.GG27103@funkthat.com> <20150210231440.GB471@rancor.immure.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:14:41 -0600 Bob Willcox <bob@immure.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:33:07PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Erich Dollansky wrote this message on Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 17:51 > > +0800: > > > int can be 64 bits on a amd64 machine. Why is the author of this > > > code so sure that we will never cross the 32 bit boundary? > > > > Per others, int is currently 32bits on all platforms we support... > > > > I guess adding: > > CTASSERT(sizeof(int) <= 4); > > > > would help fix your concern? at least now the expectation is > > codified and if it breaks, the build will break.. > > > > -- > > John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 > > 5579 > > > > If/when the size of an int ever changes from being 32 bits, top will > be the least of our worries! > if all dubious statements have asserts in place, nothing will be a worry until then. It is a very bad idea to assume a size for any type when the size can change between compilers. If you want, just read the old discussion regarding time_t. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150212091323.245485ba>