On 12/4/20 5:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
Hi Alexander,
I'm not sure how that definition will work together with existing code,
mixing uint64_t, unsigned long, and unsigned long long. Will this cause
more compiler warnings? This also will affect user-space and ports.
I think for the boot loader context, this suggestion will be completely
fine. Since this file is only used there, it should be identical to your
changes in that context.
Hi,
Does this mean that all uintXX_t types should go this way? I like
symmetry. Or only uint64_t?
The reason for changing this the way I did are expectations in the
current code. Right now, uint64_t _must_ be defined exactly like
unsigned long for amd64, else I get silly warnings like this:
sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/asm/atomic64.h:140:38: error:
incompatible
pointer types passing 'int64_t *' (aka 'long long *') to
parameter of type 'u_long *'
(aka 'unsigned long *') [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
if (atomic_fcmpset_64(&v->counter, &ret, new))
--HPS
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
