On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:35:35 Russell King - ARM Linux Admin wrote:
> Chris Rutter writes:
> > Um, does no one care that code like this:
>
> That's very a harsh way of putting it. Yes, people do care, however
> no one has reported this specific area as a problem before now, and
> therefore it hasn't been fixed.
>
> What would've been more useful is to have received a patch to correct
> this.
I thought it possible that there are widespread portability assumptions
made in the Linux kernel that made that irrelevant. I wasn't making a
value judgement.
For instance, is it true that __u8, __u16 and __u32 are assumed to be
precisely that many bits wide?
It would be necessary to know what portability assumptions are made in
order to know how generically portable the patch would need to be; I
doubt that it would need the full mLib READ32_L treatment, for instance;
I imagine sexswap(__u32) might do the trick. I assume so much of Linux
would break if those types weren't as they say...
Roll off C9-fin-X.
c.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a backup list for [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the subscription
list is regularly synchronised.
