RFC: All glibc machine maintainers: Is " RLIM_INFINITY as ((__rlim_t) -1)" OK?

[H.J. Lu]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> I think it warrants a comment that the purpose of all the unions is to have
> the kernel-compatible layout while keeping the API type as 'long int', and
> among machines where __syscall_slong_t is not 'long int' this only does the
> right thing for little-endian ones (but the only such case qualifies).

Like this?

/* Structure which says how much of each resource has been used.  The
   purpose of all the unions is to have the kernel-compatible layout
   while keeping the API type as 'long int', and among machines where
   __syscall_slong_t is not 'long int', this only does the right thing
   for little-endian ones, like x32.  */

> It would be good to let all the machine maintainers verify that
> ((__rlim_t) -1) is really the same as ((unsigned long int)(~0UL)).
> I looked at all the headers and I'm pretty sure it's true, but
> I could have missed something.

Please machine maintainers comment on this.

> I think we may also still be waiting for anyone to object to the notion of
> using anonymous __extension__ union in public header files.
>

I will wait until next Tuesday.

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.