Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:44:32 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all... Message-ID: <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com> (Joseph Koshy's message of "Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:46:13 %2B0530") References: <20050609234619.AD1F67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <p0621025fbeceac0673f8@128.113.24.47> <84dead720506091950779d1661@mail.gmail.com> <86oeae3d8f.fsf@xps.des.no> <84dead72050610001675a32c19@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com> writes: > I don't understand why that particular warning was generated i > in the first place, the cast was between two structures with > identical layout, differing only in name. The warning is correct. Two identical types with different names are not the same type unless one is a direct or indirect typedef for the other. It also seems strange to me that you on the one hand introduce a new struct to separate MD and MI interfaces, and on the other hand continue to assume that they are assignment-compatible. The code the tinderbox complained about would break badly if you extended the MD struct without recompiling userland (old userland on new kernel); now it won't, which I believe was the point. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?863brq3bbz.fsf>