[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fetch32/store32 et al
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Unless anyone objects, I would like to replace current fuword(), suword()
> and friends with a little bit better API:
> int fetch32(void *addr, uint32_t *c);
> int store32(void *addr, uint32_t c);
> And equivalent routines to fetch/store 8, 16 and 64 (if needed) bit values.
> Routines would return 0 on success and EFAULT on failure.
> Rationale: 1) there are already bugs in the tree where incorrect sizes of
> "word" are assumed (e.g. see amd64 fuword) 2) currently, fuword() et al
> cannot return -1 as a value.
Careful. Looks like you're switching from unsigned to signed. This can
cause all sorts of unexpected behavior in some cases if the return values
aren't properly masked.
Main Index |
Thread Index |