KSE: fuword/suword bugs on ia64

[Julian Elischer]

we also need a fuptr and suptr for pointers.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 10:06:02AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > 
> > > I've started runtime testing and ran into ILP32/LP64 bugs. Attached
> > > a patch that solve the first problems without affecting i386. The
> > > patch is intended to illustrate the problem more than it suggest a
> > > solution. I'm more than happy to test alternative solutions.
> > > Note that the use of uint32_t instead of unsigned int is mostly
> > > to mirror the use of fuword32/suword32...
> > 
> > I don't have any problem with the patch.  Is there another
> > solution you'd rather see, perhaps using 64bit values?
> 
> I was thinking about using long. fuword/suword is defined in terms
> of long, so technically it's a bug to have them operate on int. But
> using long will yield 64-bit fields on 64-bit platforms, and it may
> just be a waste of space. Although internal alignment and padding
> may already take up as much space (tm_flags, km_version, km_flags
> are examples of this).
> 
> I'm divided on the issue. I prefer using long for it being the best
> native type, but don't like the immediate consequence of it being
> too variable for use in interface types (take for example the 64-bit
> long on i386 that bde is playing with). With the patch I favored
> the fixed width property on uint32_t.
> 
> -- 
>  Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel at xcllnt.net
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>