2010/8/7 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no>: > Ivan Voras <ivo...@freebsd.org> writes: >> Ok, but still - if the underlying value really is declared as "int", >> doesn't it make perfect sense to have something like TUNABLE_INT for it? > > Perhaps. I don't remember all the details; I can't find a discussion in > the list archives (other than me announcing the change in response to a > bug report), but there must have been one, either on IRC or in Karlsruhe. > In any case, I never removed TUNABLE_INT(), so...
It does matter for integers on 64-bit vs 32-bit architectures though, right (feel free to ignore the second i386 value for _limits.h... it was a hack for gcc according to the comment)? $ egrep -nr '#define[[:space:]]+__LONG_MAX' amd64/include/ i386/include/ | grep -v svn amd64/include/_limits.h:63:#define __LONG_MAX 0x7fffffffffffffffL /* max for a long */ i386/include/_limits.h:65:#define __LONG_MAX 0x7fffffffffffffffL i386/include/_limits.h:69:#define __LONG_MAX 0x7fffffffL /* max value for a long */ $ egrep -nr '#define[[:space:]]+__INT_MAX' amd64/include/ i386/include/ | grep -v svn amd64/include/_limits.h:59:#define __INT_MAX 0x7fffffff /* max value for an int */ i386/include/_limits.h:59:#define __INT_MAX 0x7fffffff /* max value for an int */ I was originally asking because I didn't have the background to know why a TUNABLE_UINT set of macros didn't exist. Thanks, -Garrett _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
