On 26/06/15(Fri) 17:19, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 04:34:06PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > On 26/06/15(Fri) 16:00, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > > > > 2) I saw that you found some ALTQ leftovers, you have some Solaris > > > (2) I think ALTQs leftovers are still in CVS repo, will double check > > > anyway. Stack alignment is not Solaris compatibility hack it's sparc > > > compatibility. May be your C compiler takes care of this and grants > > > 16/32/64 bit stack alignment. I have not examined build process > > > that closely yet. > > > > By "Solaris compatibility" I'm referring to the size of ``sa_family_t'' > > and the corresponding changes in "struct pfr_table". > > > I see. sa_family_t is kind of surprise it's defined as uint16_t on Solaris. > PF at various places mixes sa_family_t with u_int8_t, so all af variables > on Solaris had to be turned to sa_family_t. Some of those changes leaked > backed during merge to current.
Even if on OpenBSD sa_family_t is defined as uint8_t, I'd argue that for portability reasons we should use the correct type where it is appropriate. And here your "leak" is a good example of portability. If you have some changes that could improve the portability of the software and if you feel like sharing them, I'd be interested. Regards, Martin
