This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: sysdeps/i386/i486/bits/string.h: describing memory access question
- From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- To: Denis Zaitsev <zzz at cd-club dot ru>
- Cc: aj at suse dot de, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:23:51 -0800
- Subject: Re: sysdeps/i386/i486/bits/string.h: describing memory access question
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <20030112023551.A22633@natasha.zzz.zzz>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Denis Zaitsev wrote:
> So, just everyhere we have (for now) something like
>
> "m" ( *(struct { char __x[0xfffffff]; } *)__str)
>
> in the input parameters list. The question is: why 0xfffffff is used?
> Would 0x7fffffff be better?
I don't think there is any reason why we use 0xfffffff instead of
0xffffffff. Maybe some gcc version complained, but I don't remember any
such problem.
Cleaning these things up would certainly be nice. If you want to work
on this I consider talking to the gcc about their preference and maybe
define the macros you proposed in a compiler version-specific way.
- --
- --------------. ,-. 444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-----------------' \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+I6z32ijCOnn/RHQRAnojAJ0Tqyr11vN+zHReNDw+Vl8bTPY+GQCbBfKE
kMqUW8O36TjsmSxWtEE4Kdk=
=Ph39
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----