On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:03:53AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > While I think support for the IPC_64 flag under emulation is useful, I'd > > rather make use of compatibility system calls and type improvements for > > the base FreeBSD implementation of the System V IPC APIs. Most of the > > work necessary to support those changes is required in order to better > > support fine-grained locking and MAC (breaking out the user and kernel > > structures). Also, it means future applications will make use of the > > improved APIs by default. In addition, other systems, such as Solaris, > > have already made this change in this way, avoiding the IPC_64 flag > > design. > > You could also simply use non-intersecting cmd parameter values > for the new calls, which avaids the special flag, and leaves the > backward compatability without adding grundles of new system calls.
What about source-level compatibility, which IMO is a good thing, at least if it doesn't add too much complexity (it clearly doesn't in this case)? Also, handling single flag should be easier from the coding perspective than a load of new values, after all we can do something like: #define IPC_STAT_OLD 0xXY #define IPC_SET_OLD 0xZW [...] #define IPC_64 0x100 #define IPC_STAT (IPC_STAT_OLD | IPC_64) #define IPC_SET (IPC_SET_OLD | IPC_64) [...] Which automagically will bring 64-version of syscalls after recompilation, while retaining ABI compatibility. -Maxim > I thought that everything was going to 64 bits and we were getting > a new system call entry vector in 5.x, anyway... wasn't Matt going > to do something like that? > > -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
