This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] uint64_aligned_t not compatible across gcc versions

To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] uint64_aligned_t not compatible across gcc versions
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:54:16 +0200
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:54:02 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C11B7F72.1854%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <44F45351.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <C11B7F72.1854%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I'll admit there's still the question of whether this is worthwhile for just
>these two hypercalls in the first place. Jan: do you think much code will be
>saved by explicit alignment for domctl/sysctl, or do you think we're just as
>well to remove uint64_aligned_t and XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64, and do compat shims
>for domctl/sysctl just as we are for all other hypercalls?

Depends on what you mean by code saving - source code or binary size.
The former shouldn't be too much (a simple function with mostly auto-
generated body per translated (sub-)structure), the latter might be
significant (a recompiled version of any non-translated hypercall). Which
variant to use for sysctl and domctl I haven't even started to think about

But as said in the other mail - it would seem to me that overall it'd be
better to not have this construct.


Xen-devel mailing list