Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:26:31 -0500 (EST)
From:      "Christopher R. Bowman" <crb@ChrisBowman.com>
To:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
Cc:        freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Data types (was: Re: FAQ FreeBSD-Sparc [frequent posting])
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.971217002352.6901D-100000@quark.ChrisBowman.com>
In-Reply-To: <19971217114053.51947@lemis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Greg Lehey wrote:

>On Wed, Dec 17, 1997 at 12:26:34AM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>> In list.freebsd-sparc perhaps@yes.no wrote:
>>>> Assumptions about the size of int will need fixed.
>>>
>>> OK, what assumptions are correct on UltraSPARC?  (Here comes a set of
>>> possible assumptions; could you try to say which are wrong, and I'll
>>> try to fix the places where some of them occur?)
>>> [...]
>>
>> On DEC Alpha (at least with DEC's cc), the following is true:
>>   - sizeof(short) == 2
>>   - sizeof(int)   == 4
>>   - sizeof(long)  == 8
>>   - sizeof(void*) == 8
>> Which is a good choice, IMHO.  I don't think it is a problem to
>> have sizeof(int) != sizeof(void*), at least I haven't had any
>> problems with that on Alphas.  Software which assumes that ints
>> and pointers are of equal size is broken anyway.
>>
>> On the other hand, I don't know how efficient it is to access
>> 32 bit units on the UltraSparc, compared to 64 bit units.
>> If 32 bit accesses involve a penalty (especially if they are
>> not 64-bit-aligned), it might be worth to use sizeof(int) =
>> sizeof(long) = 8.
>
>Agreed on both points.  But doesn't it make more sense to see how
>Solaris 2/SunOS 5 defines them?
>
>> Is there a special version of gcc for UltraSparc?  If so, we
>> will have to use its idea of the data type sizes, I'm afraid,
>> so there's no choice.
>
>Sure there is.  You can always modify it.  But without an excellent
>reason, I don't think it's a good idea to change things from the way
>other operating systems on the same platform do it.
>
>Greg

In fact, if any kind of binary compatability (which would be a wonderful
thing) is desired, having portability of header files, and interfaces would
be greatly facilitated.  Imagine a Yahoo banner, FreeBSD/SPARC runs
<insert your favorite sun app> faster than Slowaris!

---------
Christopher R. Bowman
crb@ChrisBowman.com
<A HREF="http://www.ChrisBowman.com/crb">My home page</A>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971217002352.6901D-100000>