Re: size_t changes and 32/64-bit, kernel uio_resid type changed.

At 8:27 PM +0300 8/19/09, Jordan Gordeev wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>At 9:49 PM -0700 8/18/09, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>>     size_t has been changed to unsigned long (and ssize_t to long).  I may
>>>     revert this prior to the release if we hit pkgsrc problems.  The change
>>>     will be kept for 64-bit machines.
>>>
>>>     The change on 32 bit machines seems to do a pretty good job generating
>>>     compiler warnings on 32-bit machines for code that will break on
>>>     64-bit machines.  Because of this I think it is worth seeing how badly
>>>     pkgsrc breaks with the change.  If it breaks too much we will revert
>>>     it on 32 bit machines.
>>
>>Isn't this explicitly wrong?  Isn't ssize_t defined as holding all
>>valid values of size_t, *plus* some extra values which can be used
>>for error indications?
>>
>>To quote SUSv3:
>>
>>    "The type ssize_t shall be capable of storing values at least
>>     in the range [-1, {SSIZE_MAX}]"
>>
>>So are you defining SSIZE_MAX to be smaller than maximum-long?
>>
>You are mistaken.
>ssize_t is expected to be the same size as size_t.
>
>SSIZE_MAX in our case will equal LONG_MAX. What do you see as being
>wrong with that?

Ah, yeah, I see where I'm reading it wrong.  Sorry for the noise.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   [e-mail]
Senior Systems Programmer           or  [e-mail]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  [e-mail]