linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sigset_t32 broken?

To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: sigset_t32 broken?
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@mandrakesoft.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:30:15 +0100
Cc: Vivien Chappelier <vivienc@nerim.net>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Linux/MIPS Development <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0301271019030.6130-100000@vervain.sonytel.be> (Geert Uytterhoeven's message of "Mon, 27 Jan 2003 10:19:26 +0100 (MET)")
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0301271019030.6130-100000@vervain.sonytel.be>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Gnus/5.090012 (Oort Gnus v0.12) Emacs/21.2.92 (i386-mandrake-linux-gnu)
>>>>> "geert" == Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:

geert> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Vivien Chappelier wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> > Most of what your patch does is undoing an accidental commit of a signal
>> > rework that wasn't yet supposed to go out.
>> 
>> Maybe.. but current version is still wrong :) The type of the sig
>> array in the 32-bit compatibility struct sigset_t32 must be 32bit long,
>> i.e. unsigned int not unsigned long.
>> And I think unsigned describes the data better than signed, but that's a
>> matter of taste :) (coherent with the choice in asm-mips/signal.h).

geert> Why not make it u32?

Nahh, that will make it clear indeed to stupid's like me :p

Later ,Juan.



-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>