* H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> 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