On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 m...@freebsd.org wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 m...@freebsd.org wrote: >>> >>>> There appear to be 330 uses of SYSCTL and QUAD on the same line in >>>> CURRENT. This seems reasonable to change them to S64, U64 and X64 so >>>> they correctly reflect the size they operate upon. >>>> >>>> What do y'all think? >>> >>> Now I suggest delaying this until they can be renamed to a type- generic >>> SYSCTL_INT() (would probably need to be spelled differently, SYSCTL_I() >>> say, even if SYSCTL_INT() was changed at the same time). >> >> I'm torn on this one. The compiler knows the type (unless, for >> SYSCTL_INT, NULL/0 is used, but that is also a compile-time check), >> but to interpret it requires the use of __builtin_foo which is a gcc >> extension and not part of standard C. >> >> Philosophically, while I like this kind of letting the compiler do the >> work, if you want C++ you know where to find it. > > Oops. I think sizeof() and issigned() can be used to determine the type > well enough in functions and initialized data (do a fuller type check if > the compiler supports it), but I don't know how to do this in static > sysctl declarations (since sizeof() can't be used in cpp expressions).
Why not just create some dumb testcases that can be run at build time to determine that for you? -Garrett _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"