* H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/08/16 01:33, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Note that this particular build error was introduced by b0bdba9825fe, a
> > later
> > patch in this series - but in generaly I'm uneasy about allowing function
> > signatures diverge between architectures.
> >
>
> For the bitops, they already do: PowerPC, for example, have "unsigned
> long" in places where x86 has "int". This is obviously undesirable, but
> apparently we have not found it enough of a problem to deal with.
>
> One could easily argue the ppc definition is the better one; I was myself
> considering promoting the x86 side to "long" to handle enormous bitmaps. At
> the
> same time, it is hard to avoid the fact that ppc has unsigned bitops
> operations
> and x86 has signed ones when they are both native instructions.
That's a divergence with an underlying reason - but not harmonizing the return
code is an unforced error AFAICS and can be fixed.
Thanks,
Ingo
