|Subject:||Re: Eliminating grub_size_t|
|Date:||Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:26:55 -0400|
|User-agent:||Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (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 bootloader?"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).
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|