Re: setsockopt() compat issue

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 05:53:22PM -0400, Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
> I think most of those arguments given in that paper are almost as 
> completely bogus, and are clearly ignorant of the various elephants in 
> their room, as the (sadly similar) arguments which created the massive and 
> unnecessary bogosity which came out of the Large File Summit.
>
> I think in reality ILP64, or perhaps S32ILP64, has clearly been shown to 
> work just as well for at least some relevant hardware architectures.
>
> A better argument as to why NetBSD uses I32LP64 on those architectures 
> where ILP64 might make more sense would be to say that it was simply easier 
> to follow the herd than to try to ride against them all no matter how bogus 
> were the arguments used by the herd to choose their direction.

I don't understand the point of your argument. What *purpose* is
served by making "int" 64 bits wide? What problem are you trying to
solve?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost