From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IWx63-0007ol-AI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:47 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IWx60-0007lT-QU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:46 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IWx60-0007lQ-Jk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:44 -0400
Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2] helo=mx1.suse.de)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <schwab@suse.de>) id 1IWx60-0005LC-7d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:44 -0400
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Comment for Solaris fix for the HPTC
References: <26700091.1189955481400.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml11>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:35:38 +0200
In-Reply-To: <26700091.1189955481400.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml11> (Ben Taylor's
	message of "Sun\, 16 Sep 2007 11\:11\:21 -0400")
Message-ID: <jemyvmfu05.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: sol10x86@cox.net
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Ben Taylor <sol10x86@cox.net> writes:

> ---- Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:=20
>> Hi Ben,
>>=20
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Ben Taylor wrote:
>>=20
>> > +#ifdef __sun__
>> > +/* Have to define this for Solaris as ULONG_LONG_MAX is not defined
>> > +   anywhere.  ULONG_MAX is correct only on _LP64 systems */
>> > +#define ULONG_LONG_MAX 18446744073709551615UL
>> > +#endif
>> > +
>>=20
>> These constants are always defined, right?  So why not "#ifndef=20
>> ULONG_LONG_MAX"?
>
> I fear I may not have explained this well.
>
> On the Solaris systems I have access to, I find no system include file
> that defines "ULONG_LONG_MAX".
>
> There are defines for ULONG_MAX which is equivilent to the value that
> ULONG_LONG_MAX is, but only when the system is being compiled on
> an "_LP64" (ie x86_64) system.  When the system is 32-bit, ULONG_MAX
> defaults to a typical max value for a 32-bit unsigned int.

Your reference to ULONG_MAX is a red herring.  ULONG_MAX is the limit
for unsigned long, and ULONG_LONG_MAX is the limit for unsigned long
long.  If your compiler does not support the long long type then
ULONG_LONG_MAX should not be defined either.  Instead, vl.c should use
UINT64_MAX.

Andreas.

--=20
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstra=DFe 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint =3D 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED=
5
"And now for something completely different."