Re: Recent checkins

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Roland McGrath <roland@gnu.org> writes:

> > Right, mach_msg_type_number_t is really not part of the wire protocol
> > at all, and my comments don't apply to that.
> 
> But some of those natural_t types (including mach_port_name_t) are indeed
> part of the "wire" protocol with the kernel.

Right.  Fixing the kernel protocols is a part of fixing things for
network transparency.

> Who is?  I thought we were talking about recent changes, or perhaps changes
> likely in the foreseeable future.  Recent changes had to do with the Alpha.
> Foreseeable changes have to do with an extant platform.  On every extant
> plaform, int is 32 bits.

Perhaps I misunderstand then.  How did the alpha generate these
warnings you were fixing?  I thought the alpha used 64 bit "int", but
perhaps I'm remembering wrong.  (Ah, is it that the alpha has 64 bit
"void *"?)

> Anyway, I think you missed the fundamental point.  I think certain
> non-transparencies are not a problem, because the issues can and should be
> handled at a protocol-aware layer rather than at a generic message layer.

No, I did get that point, and if that is the right judgment, then we
can just entirely punt the issue as you suggest.