From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21171 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2006 20:53:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 21164 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2006 20:53:11 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gateway.sf.frob.com (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:53:10 +0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D8A357B; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by magilla.sf.frob.com (Postfix, from userid 5281) id 87E4B1809D1; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:53:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Cc: Hien Nguyen , SystemTAP Subject: Re: nightly test result of systemtap in ppc64 In-Reply-To: Frank Ch. Eigler's message of , 10 April 2006 16:42:02 -0400 X-Zippy-Says: FIRST, I'm covering you with OLIVE OIL and PRUNE WHIP!! Message-Id: <20060410205307.87E4B1809D1@magilla.sf.frob.com> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:53:00 -0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 > More likely a "pilot error" in the new code. Is "long long" on ppc64 > a 64-bit or 128-bit quantity? And on x86_64? It's 64 bits, but is not the same type as "long", which is also 64 bits. On x86_64 the kernel uses "long long" for s64/u64 (aka int64_t et al), on ppc64 it uses "long". There is no big reason to do one or the other, and there are nit reasons like this one leaning in both directions. I wouldn't really want to depend on which choice is made among the various kernel versions and machines.