From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "David Syzdek" <syzdek@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for uintmax_t type on FreeBSD 4.9
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:17:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7v1vy2imt2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9a0027270810262246i56cf5515l5fa0875f91d90a7a@mail.gmail.com> (David Syzdek's message of "Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:46:20 -0800")
"David Syzdek" <syzdek@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I have a stupid question.
>>
>> Would it be a more appropriate improvement to do it like this:
>>
>> ifdef USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T
>> BASIC_CFLAGS += -Duintmax_t="$(USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T)"
>> endif
>>
>> and then add a section for FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY like this:
>>
>> ifeq ($(uname_R),4.9-SECURITY)
>> USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T = uint32_t
>> endif
>>
>> That way, an oddball 64-bit machine can use uint64_t here if it wants to,
>> possibly including FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY backported to 64-bit ;-).
>>
>
> Your suggestion provides more flexibility for other environments. I
> was making the assumption that 64-bit systems would define uintmax_t,
> however in retrospect that would be unwise.
> Would you like me to resubmit the patches with your modifications?
Actually there was a reason why I said this was a "stupid" question. I
think your assumption on 64-bit platforms would hold in practice, and my
suggestion could be an unnecessary overengineering. If nobody knows of a
system that would benefit from such a generalization, your original patch
would be better, partly because I think:
(1) USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T is just for demonstration of concept and is a
terrible name we cannot possibly use in our Makefile. We have to
spend brain cycles to come up with a better name; and
(2) It may be tricky to come up with autoconf macros to determine what to
set USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T to.
As a slightly unrelated aside, I find it somewhat unfortunate that the
conditional says "4.9-SECURITY", which is a bit too explicit and specific.
to my taste. I do not know how FreeBSD versioning scheme works, but
wouldn't your change work equally well for 4.9-RELEASE or 4.11-RELEASE?
I suspect that you would want to say "$(uname_R) that begins with '4.' or
smaller needs this workaround", as strtoul(3) manual page seems to appear
first in FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE (but not found in FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-27 6:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-26 11:52 [PATCH] Add support for uintmax_t type on FreeBSD 4.9 David M. Syzdek
2008-10-27 5:30 ` Junio C Hamano
[not found] ` <9a0027270810262239r311074m51d382bdd95fd0dc@mail.gmail.com>
2008-10-27 5:46 ` David Syzdek
2008-10-27 6:17 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2008-10-27 13:23 ` David Syzdek
2008-10-28 4:14 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7v1vy2imt2.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=syzdek@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).