On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 10:43 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: > On Thursday 05 November 2015 10:30:27 Svante Signell wrote: > > > > + mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port; > > + if (port == MACH_PORT_NULL || > > + (&__hurd_local_reply_port != &__hurd_reply_port0 && > > + port == __hurd_reply_port0)) > > + port = __mach_reply_port (); > > > > - return __hurd_local_reply_port; > > + return port; > > } > > The current version may change __hurd_local_reply_port, while your > proposed version does not.
The allocation could be fixed by? port = __hurd_local_reply_port = __mach_reply_port (); But, doing that would not improve readability much. Proposal withdrawn. > > > > Samuel: Regarding your previous comment: > > > > Additionally, any strong reason to not change mig?? > > > > > > Having to deal with the introduced incompatibility. > > > > Incompatibility with what, older versions of glibc/hurd/mach/mig, > > which > > ones? > > If your suggestion is to remove the argument from > __mig_dealloc_reply_port, that isn't an option, as it would be an ABI > break in libc. Again, how many Hurd users would suffer from an ABI break? I think this could be open for discussion, maybe IRC would be better than here.
