Re: A simple cpufreq(9)

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

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:16:29PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
 > > If that periodically-threatened pdp10 port (or some other off-size
 > > port) ever appears, it's not likely to care about the size that
 > > appears in some other environment (unlike for on-disk structures) and
 > > using an explicit size will if anything make life more complicated.
 > 
 > Especially if it's a size that doesn't exist on that port.  Is uint32_t
 > "32 bits" or "at least 32 bits"?  THe former may well not exist on a
 > pdp10 port.

It's exactly 32 bits. There's a uint_least32_t defined in C99 (and in
our headers and such) for the latter. However, I'm not convinced
there's ever been a serious implementation done that required that
mechanism, and most code both in and out of our tree certainly doesn't
use it.

I'm sure at this point someone could put together a 36-bit machine out
of FPGAs that ran fast enough to be used as a low-volume web server,
and there are certainly heterogeneity advantages to such a platform.
Maybe someone who knows enough about such things should actually do
this :-)

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