From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33603 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PnsPi-0000uw-93 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:47:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PnsPg-000846-P3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:47:53 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:43004) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PnsPg-00083x-Gr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:47:52 -0500 Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so2055953qyk.4 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:47:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4D552FF3.2040006@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:47:47 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4D4D612F.2010904@mail.berlios.de> <4D54C384.2000500@landley.net> In-Reply-To: <4D54C384.2000500@landley.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Porting QEMU to new hosts with unusual ABI (sizeof(long) != sizeof(void *)) List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Rob Landley Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 02/11/2011 06:05 AM, Rob Landley wrote: >> While this assumption works on QEMU's major hosts, it is not generally >> true. > > It is generally true. There is exactly one operating system that > decided to go its own way, and the insane legacy reasons they did so are > explained here: > > http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/01/31/363790.aspx Unix could do that because it had the luxury of having introduced 64-bit when they already were using int=long=32. So really nobody was using long until 64-bit systems came along. Windows instead has to deal with the legacy of 16-bit, when long was the only 32-bit type. I have always agreed with you, but as much as I like LP64, I recently changed my mind on this stance. stdint.h means that there is _no reason_ why a program cannot be written portably so that it runs on both I32LP64 and IL32LLP64 models. Someone has to do the work, of course, and it's surprising that two people (Filip Navara and now Stefan) were brave enough to try it. :) It has to be a well-audited change though, not a quick attempt at making it work. Paolo ps: HP-UX also uses IL32 on ia64. Now _that_ is hard to understand.