[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       hurd-bug
Subject:    Re: Confusing definitions and declarations of mig_dealloc_reply_port()
From:       Svante Signell <svante.signell () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-11-05 10:13:57
Message-ID: 1446718437.31749.113.camel () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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 Proposal withdrawn.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.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]