size_t has different size on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, but we should
strive to make the userspace utilities work like the bootloader, so that
possible problems can be detected early and debugged easily.
I didn't understand this. What do you mean with "US working like the
bootloader?"
I mean that if, say, GRUB fails to read reiserfs, I'd like to be able to
reproduce the problem in grub-fstest even if I'm compiling it on x86_64.
In this case, so we're producing a 32-bit, pc grub image. To have a
similar effect in grub-fstest, we'd need to define grub_size_t to be a
32-bit quantity when compiling that too, am I right? Is there any
reason not to just have grub-fstest try to imitate whatever the
bootloader image decides it needs? So if some platform requires a
64-bit bootloader and we're running on 32-bits, we may need a 64-bit
grub_size_t in both places (well, this is maybe not likely to work
entirely, but GCC can generate the operations -- or we could just use 32
bit for grub-fstest then if we think it's the least-nonsensical thing to
do in that hypothetical situation).
-Isaac
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
