[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Eliminating grub_size_t

From: Isaac Dupree
Subject: Re: Eliminating grub_size_t
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:26:55 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080505)

size_t has different size on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, but we should
strive to make the userspace utilities work like the bootloader, so that
possible problems can be detected early and debugged easily.
I didn't understand this. What do you mean with "US working like the

I mean that if, say, GRUB fails to read reiserfs, I'd like to be able to reproduce the problem in grub-fstest even if I'm compiling it on x86_64.

In this case, so we're producing a 32-bit, pc grub image. To have a similar effect in grub-fstest, we'd need to define grub_size_t to be a 32-bit quantity when compiling that too, am I right? Is there any reason not to just have grub-fstest try to imitate whatever the bootloader image decides it needs? So if some platform requires a 64-bit bootloader and we're running on 32-bits, we may need a 64-bit grub_size_t in both places (well, this is maybe not likely to work entirely, but GCC can generate the operations -- or we could just use 32 bit for grub-fstest then if we think it's the least-nonsensical thing to do in that hypothetical situation).


reply via email to

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