[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!tag open_issue_mig]] # IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-11-14 also, what's the best way to deal with types such as type cache_info_t = struct[23] of integer_t; whereas cache_info_t contains longs, which are obviously not integer-wide on 64-bits processors ? you mean, to port mach to 64bit? no, to make the RPC declaration portable just in case :) refine integer_t into something more precise such as size_t, off_t, etc. i can't use a single line then struct cache_info contains ints, vm_size_t, longs should i just use the maximum size it can get ? or declare two sizes depending on the word size ? well, I'd say three youpi: three ? the ints, the vm_size_ts, and the longs youpi: i don't get it youpi: how would i write it in mig language ? I don't know the mig language me neither :) but I'd say don't lie i just see struct[23] of smething the original zone_info struct includes both integer_t and vm_size_t, and declares it as type zone_info_t = struct[9] of integer_t; in its mig defs file i don't have a good example to reuse which is lying yes which is why i was wondering if mach architects themselves actually solved that problem :) "There is no way to specify the fields of a C structure to MIG. The size and type-desc are just used to give the size of the structure. " well, this sucks :/ well, i'll do what the rest of the code seems to do, and let it rot until a viable solution is available braunr: we discussed the problem of expressing structs with MIG in the libburn thread (which I still need to follow up on... [sigh])