On 29/06/2022 15:49, Christian Lindig wrote: > > > On 29 Jun 2022, at 14:55, Jane Malalane > <jane.malal...@citrix.com<mailto:jane.malal...@citrix.com>> wrote: > > + physinfo = caml_alloc_tuple(11); > Store_field(physinfo, 0, Val_int(c_physinfo.threads_per_core)); > Store_field(physinfo, 1, Val_int(c_physinfo.cores_per_socket)); > Store_field(physinfo, 2, Val_int(c_physinfo.nr_cpus)); > @@ -749,6 +749,17 @@ CAMLprim value stub_xc_physinfo(value xch) > Store_field(physinfo, 8, cap_list); > Store_field(physinfo, 9, Val_int(c_physinfo.max_cpu_id + 1)); > > +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) > + /* > + * arch_capabilities: physinfo_arch_cap_flag list; > + */ > + arch_cap_list = c_bitmap_to_ocaml_list > + /* ! physinfo_arch_cap_flag CAP_ none */ > + /* ! XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_ XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_X86_MAX max */ > + (c_physinfo.arch_capabilities); > + Store_field(physinfo, 10, arch_cap_list); > +#endif > + > CAMLreturn(physinfo); > } > > I this extending the tuple but only defining a value on x86? Does this not > lead to undefined fields on other architectures?
You're right, it's missing a definition, I will send a new version - will just give some time for more eventual comments from others on the series overall. Thank you, Jane
