On Jun 28, 2007, at 08:08:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:53:51AM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
Oh, ok, that makes it even easier to say this with certainty:
Changing the other 64-bit archs to use "long long" for their 64-
bit numbers will not cause additional warnings. I'm also almost
certain there are no architectures which use "long long" for 128-
bit integers. (Moreover, I can't find hardly anything which does
128-bit integers at all).
unsigned long and unsigned long long have the same size, precision
and alignment on all LP64 arches, that's true. But they have
different ranks and more importantly they mangle differently in C+
+. So, whether some user exposed type uses unsigned long or
unsigned long long is part of the ABI, whether that's size_t,
uintptr_t, uint64_t, u_int64_t or any other type, you can't change
it without breaking the ABI.
That sounds *extraordinarily* broken. Hopefully this would *not*
affect the type of a function which is passed a C "struct" containing
the "long long", right?
Hmm, I guess the question is: Do we support people directly passing
__u64 to C++ functions in userspace? I could understand, perhaps,
passing around structures defined in the kernel headers, but
certainly not the kernel-internal types. The only reason we even
export those is so we can have a private set of bit-size-defined
types with which to define kernel ABI structures.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
