In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 05:51:17PM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 05:59:09AM +0000, Paul Richards wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are expressions like ((uid_t)0-1) portable/safe ? Maybe that's a better
> > > > way of approaching this.
> > >
> > > To get the all-1's number, maybe it's better to use ((uid_t)~0), but
> > > that is a rather controversial topic anyway.
> >
> > That works, but on machines like the Alpha where longs are bigger
> > than ints it only works by virtue of sign extension. Our existing
> > headers seem to prefer ((uid_t)0-1). That's what is used in the
> > i386's <machine/limits.h>.
>
> My bummer, I thought the definition was the same in /sys/sys/types.h and
> in /usr/include/sys/types.h -- and there I could see:
>
> % cd /sys ; grep uid sys/* | grep type
> sys/conf.h:typedef void devfs_create_t __P((dev_t dev, uid_t uid...
> sys/types.h:typedef u_int32_t uid_t; /* user id */
> % cd /usr/include ; grep uid sys/* | grep type
> sys/conf.h:typedef void devfs_create_t __P((dev_t dev, uid_t uid...
> sys/types.h:typedef u_int32_t uid_t; /* user id */
>
> and I mistakenly assumed that both x86 and alpha's use uid_t's of 32
> bits. What did I miss?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about the general case, not
about uid_t in particular.
John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
