From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 10 08:53:22 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F3516A41C
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:53:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from joseph.koshy@gmail.com)
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.195])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5467043D48
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:53:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from joseph.koshy@gmail.com)
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j1so268443rnf
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=aWscTtdQlVicRn/ev3kl2f+sQhSjiDesZjJET2au382cw8CFU5IbDrWgQ8x4KMbxxZQjn6pbRPjDujzpqI0h3ZagRXQOsQwEULfRIusewwl4/jKLsCHZQuHIUVCtjuofgif3P7xr1abdjAmOLUbklOdnTBYO4i3W/EfDbjAifEA=
Received: by 10.38.101.1 with SMTP id y1mr244029rnb;
	Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.38.209.73 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <84dead7205061001534b9385b3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:23:21 +0530
From: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
In-Reply-To: <863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
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>
	<863brq3bbz.fsf@xps.des.no>
Cc: current@freebsd.org, Garance A Drosehn <gad@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy@gmail.com>
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:53:23 -0000

> The warning is correct.  Two identical types with different
> not the same type unless one is a direct or indirect typedef=20
> for the other.

You are right.  I was under the impression that the
C type system based on structural equivalence.

> It also seems strange to me that you on the one hand=20
> introduce a new struct to separate MD and MI interfaces,=20
> and on the other hand continue to assume that they are=20
> assignment-compatible. =20

I'd be very surprised if two C structures with identical=20
definitions were not assignment compatible.  The code in=20
question would have changed (to something like what it is now)=20
had the MD struct changed in the future.

--=20
FreeBSD Volunteer,     http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy