svn commit: r282415 - head/usr.sbin/ntp

[John-Mark Gurney]

Cy Schubert wrote this message on Sun, May 17, 2015 at 17:53 -0700:
> In message <20150517190810.4006b7bb at bender.Home>, Andrew Turner writes:
> > On Mon, 4 May 2015 12:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
> > Cy Schubert <cy at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Author: cy
> > > Date: Mon May  4 12:42:52 2015
> > > New Revision: 282415
> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/282415
> > > 
> > > Log:
> > >   Restore CPU dependent compile time conditionals.
> > >   
> > >   MFC after:	1 month (with r281143 and r282408)
> > 
> > Do you have any plans on fixing this before you MFC it? Specifically:
> >  * sizeof(char *) == 8 on arm64, powerpc64, and mips64
> >  * sizeof(long) == 8 on arm64, powerpc64, and mips64
> >  * sizeof(time_t) == 8 on arm, arm64, powerpc64, mips, and mips64
> >  * STR_SYSTEM is incorrect on arm, arm64, powerpc64, mips, and mips64,
> >    however this is now less broken as it was previously also broken on
> >    i386, and sparc64.
> > 
> > This change is only correct for amd64, i386, and sparc64.
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> > 
> > I suspect all of the above will also be relevant on ia64. We still have
> > support in 10-STABLE for this so should be fixed before an MFC.
> 
> We should support ia64 at least until it's no longer supported in -stable.
> 
> > 
> > I have heard reports that NTP is broken on some of the above platforms
> > so they don't keep very accurate time. Can you fix this, or revert this
> > change until a fix can be written.
> 
> Unfortunately -stable is currently as broken as it is in -current. The 
> quick fix is to add all supported platforms. The other unfortunate fact is 
> that, scanning the tree for other examples there's more code as broken as 
> this is. I propose:
> 
> 1. Fix NTP -- I will do this. I have some free time coming up this week to
>    focus on this.
> 2. Identify other parts of the tree needing a little love and either putting
>    it up on the wiki or in phabricator.
> 3. Fix #2 (either me or others as we see fit).
> 
> Alternatively, a common solution for all parts of the tree, if possible. 
> This is probably a long term solution though. (The purist in me prefers 
> this but I am practical too.)

Why can't we use sizeof for these?

-- 
  John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 415 225 5579

     "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."