| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] uint64_aligned_t not compatible across gcc versions
>I'll admit there's still the question of whether this is worthwhile for just
>these two hypercalls in the first place. Jan: do you think much code will be
>saved by explicit alignment for domctl/sysctl, or do you think we're just as
>well to remove uint64_aligned_t and XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64, and do compat shims
>for domctl/sysctl just as we are for all other hypercalls?
Depends on what you mean by code saving - source code or binary size.
The former shouldn't be too much (a simple function with mostly auto-
generated body per translated (sub-)structure), the latter might be
significant (a recompiled version of any non-translated hypercall). Which
variant to use for sysctl and domctl I haven't even started to think about
yet.
But as said in the other mail - it would seem to me that overall it'd be
better to not have this construct.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home