linux-kernel - Re: i386 and x86-64 bitops function prototypes differ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45BA3F42.3020006@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:49:54 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	eranian@....hp.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: i386 and x86-64 bitops function prototypes differ

Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I ran into compiler warnings with the perfmon code when I tried
> using test() and __set_bit() on i386. 
> 
> For some reason, the i386 bitops functions use unsigned long * for
> the address whereas x86-64/ia64 use void *.
> 
> I do not quite understand why such difference?
> Is this just for historical reasons?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Arguably void * is the right thing for a littleendian architecture.  For 
bigendian architectures it unfortunately matters what the chunk size is, 
regardless of if the chunks are numbered in bigendian (reverse) or 
littleendian (forward) order.

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/