Ben Harris <bjh21@netbsd.org> 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
> proceed.

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.


- Klaus