Subject: Re: 64-bit ABIs
To: Ben Harris <email@example.com>
From: Klaus Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/29/2003 14:00:17
Ben Harris <email@example.com> writes:
> So, my question is: are there any systems on which the ABI differs for
> functions which return uint32_t as opposed to unsigned long? For the
> obvious implementation (function return value in a register), I'd expect
> not, but I'd like confirmation of this so I can decide how to
This is not a problem on any platform currently supported.
> Similarly, inet_makeaddr is specified as having in_addr_t arguments, but
> we have it taking u_long. Do any of our current LP64 ABIs break if we
> change a u_long argument to a uint32_t?
No; in fact, similar changes (i.e., size_t -> socklen_t argument to
getnameinfo(), inet_ntop()) have been made recently.