svn commit: r223139 - head/lib/libstand

[Bruce Evans]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Tai-hwa Liang wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> And you need to add #include <stdint.h> to stand.h in order to get
>>> uintmax_t. Here's a proper patch for amd64..
>> 
>> This would add namespace pollution.  stand.h doesn't use anything in
>> <stdint.h>.  It depends on normal namespace pollution in an XXX section
>> in <sys/types.h> for the declaration of uintptr_t.  It and other headers
>> should use __uintptr_t instead.  Strangely, <sys/types.h> declares
>> uintptr_t but not uintmax_t.
>
>  What about casting to __uintmax_t instead?
>
> Index: zalloc.c
> ===================================================================
> --- zalloc.c	(revision 223146)
> +++ zalloc.c	(working copy)
> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@
>     if ((char *)ptr < (char *)mp->mp_Base ||
> 	(char *)ptr + bytes > (char *)mp->mp_End ||
> 	((iaddr_t)ptr & MEMNODE_SIZE_MASK) != 0)
> -	panic("zfree(%p,%ju): wild pointer", ptr, bytes);
> +	panic("zfree(%p,%ju): wild pointer", ptr, (__uintmax_t)bytes);
> ...

zalloc.c is not the (header) implementation, so it should not use the
implementation detail (anything beginning with __).

The latest tinderbox errors for this are hard to understand.  For amd64
they say:

> /src/lib/libstand/zalloc.c: In function 'zfree':
> /src/lib/libstand/zalloc.c:157: warning: format '%ju' expects type 'uintmax_t', but argument 3 has type 'iaddr_t'

but amd64 seems to be just like sparc64 -- both seem to declare all the
types as `unsigned long' at the lowest level.  I would expect all 64-bit
arches to do this, although this is logically wrong (it makes the largest
integral type uintmax_t logically smaller than the standard bogus type
unsigned long long).  This logic error is partly intentional (it detects
different type mismatches than uintmax_t = `unsigned long long' combined
with uint64_t = `unsigned long' would).

Bruce