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

[Garance A Drosihn <drosih@xxxxxxx>]

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            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu