Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:44:22 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, "Conrad E. Meyer" <cem@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r290613 - head/sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux Message-ID: <5641A056.2040805@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: <20151110080516.M4088@besplex.bde.org> References: <201511091650.tA9Gog7d061645@repo.freebsd.org> <20151110080516.M4088@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/09/15 22:17, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Conrad E. Meyer wrote: > >> Log: >> linuxkpi/sysfs.h: Cast arg2 through intptr_t to avoid GCC warning >> >> The code compiles fine under Clang, but GCC on PPC is less permissive >> about >> integer and pointer sizes. (An intmax_t is clearly *large enough* to >> hold a >> pointer value.) >> >> Another follow-up to r290475. > > This shouldn't compile either. > Hi Conrad, > static int > -sysctl_root_handler_locked(struct sysctl_oid *oid, void *arg1, intptr_t arg2, > +sysctl_root_handler_locked(struct sysctl_oid *oid, void *arg1, intmax_t arg2, > struct sysctl_req *req, struct rm_priotracker *tracker) Given that the second argument is sometimes used for pointers, maybe we should keep it intptr_t. Or add a compile time assert that sizeof(intmax) >= sizeof(intptr_t) which I think doesn't hold? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5641A056.2040805>