WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] sizeof(long) different under windows x64 and linux x64

To: James Harper <james.harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] sizeof(long) different under windows x64 and linux x64
From: Daniel Stodden <dns@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:26:18 +0100
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:17:12 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0131A8A5@trantor>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Mädchen
References: <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D0131A8A5@trantor>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:01 +1100, James Harper wrote:
> Under gcc on an x64 system, sizeof(long) = 8
> Under windows ddk on an x64 system, sizeof(long) = 4

true for windows c compilers, independent of the ddk.

> Are the xen header files written with the assumption that sizeof(long) =
> 8? 

well, gcc built the xen binary under this assumption, right?

> If so, this would explain why i'm getting EINVAL from the hypervisor
> under windows x64...

indeed. it's still about the add_to_physmap issue you described? 
will need a fix then to adjust the xen_ulong_t typedef accordingly on
x86_64.

correlated question from my side: what is xen_ulong_t good for?
shouldn't the public headers use either stdint or a more descriptive
typedef? ulong_t sounds pretty redundant to me, especially when
typedef'd to an 'unsigned long'.

regards,
daniel

-- 
dns@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Wire up your home and stay there.




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel