Re: bmake inefficiencies

To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg%juniper.net@localhost>
Subject: Re: bmake inefficiencies
From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 08:55:02 +0100

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:52:03PM -0800, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> > No, it is not int - several NetBSD architectures use long.
> 
> Sorry,  the one I checked as int, but I don't see that it should really
> matter?  int should be the type that any architecture deals with most
> naturally.

You can not assume that in this context - that is what sig_atomic_t is for.

Martin

References:
- bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Mateusz Guzik
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Roland Illig
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Simon J. Gerraty
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Simon J. Gerraty
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: David Holland
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Simon J. Gerraty
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Martin Husemann
- Re: bmake inefficiencies
  - From: Simon J. Gerraty

Prev by Date: Re: panic: _bus_virt_to_bus for vioif on GCE with GENERIC kernel
Next by Date: Re: bmake inefficiencies
Previous by Thread: Re: bmake inefficiencies
Next by Thread: Re: bmake inefficiencies
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index