Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ...all...

From: Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des_at_des.no>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:06:16 +0200
Joseph Koshy <joseph.koshy_at_gmail.com> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des_at_des.no> writes:
> > It also seems strange to me that you on the one hand introduce a
> > new struct to separate MD and MI interfaces, and on the other hand
> > continue to assume that they are assignment-compatible.
> I'd be very surprised if two C structures with identical definitions
> were not assignment compatible.

I wouldn't be surprised if the standard says they aren't.
Unfortunately, my copy is at home.

>                                  The code in question would have
> changed (to something like what it is now) had the MD struct changed
> in the future.

Of course, but you wouldn't be able to run an old userland on a new
kernel.  I thought that was (much of) the point of separating MI from
MD.

Please fix your MUA to attribute what it quotes.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des_at_des.no
Received on Fri Jun 10 2005 - 07:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:36 UTC