On 20-Nov-01 Leo Bicknell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 04:51:29PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: >> That looks very promising indeed. Hrmm. I should go see if NetBSD has >> fixed >> this. I guess having timeval be different sizes on different archs is a bit >> of >> a pain. :( Perhaps it should use uint32_t? Or perhaps struct tsp should >> use >> its own variant of timeval with uint32_t or some such. Ugh. > > If timeval is different sizes on different archs then I would > recomend the work be done take it to 64 bits, not 32. It fixes a > problem in about 30 years. :-)
We'll cross that bridge when it comes to it, right now we need to not break binary compatibility with all those existing 4.x machines out there right now. Also, NetBSD used int32_t to be consistent. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
