[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Centralizing understanding of far pointers

From: Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Centralizing understanding of far pointers
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:02:40 +0200

2009/7/29 Javier Martín <address@hidden>:
> Robert Millan escribió:
>> First of all, please don't call them far pointers.  They're an i8086 legacy
>> cruft, which have nothing to do with far or close really (although we seem to
>> have some code that makes this reference already).
> So... how do we call them? I am an utter failure at making up sensible
> names.
>> Is there a usefulness in this `raw_bits' member?  It doesn't have any
>> real meaning, as it doesn't correspond to an actual address.
> Mainly, the possibility of checking equality against a particular bit
> pattern without using another instance of the structure/union. Also,
> some code might want to still use the raw bits for some reason, instead
> of either the nearly-opaque handling described above or the more
> detailed view provided by the inner structure.
raw_bits don't seem very useful and using them is error-prone. E.g.
two pointers may reffer to same address even having different
raw_bits. So I would prefer not to include them unless there are real
examples when it's useful

> OK then... That means the code will have to move from i386/pc/memory.h
> to i386/memory.h. And what about x86_64?
Put a memory.h in x86_64/memory.h which will include i386/memory.h

Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

Personal git repository:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]