Re: size_t/ssize_t warnings (was: Re: Buildregressions/improvements in v3.5-rc5)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:18:52 +0200

> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> <hans-peter.nilsson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Um, no, ssize_t isn't long.  Do you mean __kernel_ssize_t?
> 
> In the kernel, (s)size_t == __kernel_(s)size_t

Right, sorry for being slow.

> OK, so (s)size_t should be (unsigned) int for Linux.

Both the the kernel and userspace, yes.

> Probably the "long" dates from the time people used cris-axis-elf
> instead of cris-axis-linux-gnu, and "__SIZE_TYPE" from the time
> people started using cris-axis-linux-gnu?

I don't remember.  I have a vague recollection of a change in
the distant past.

> Ah, yes, commit ac505a9fd19c99fdb622fe4896446f995151babc
> ("[PATCH] CRIS architecture update for 2.5.74") in full-history-linux
> changed size_t from "unsigned long" to __SIZE_TYPE, but didn't
> update ssize_t. Probably "signed __SIZE_TYPE" doesn't work?

Well no.  Remember here it's "unsigned int": "signed unsigned
int" doesn't compile very well.

> So I guess they should be changed to (explicit) "unsigned int", resp.
> "int". Or does it make sense to retain __SIZE_TYPE?

I think it'd make sense to use __SIZE_TYPE__ (don't forget the
trailing "__") for *all* targets that don't have a particular
difference between kernel and userspace ABI's (notable
exceptions being those with use 32-bit user and 64-bit kernel
ABIs).  Unfortunately, there's no __SSIZE_TYPE__.

brgds, H-P
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/