From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri,  8 Jul 2005 19:02:54 -0600
From: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question
In-Reply-To: <f4e875772b165f384f8dd867dc1819b0@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507081859060.7123@enigma.lanl.gov>
References: <f4e875772b165f384f8dd867dc1819b0@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 634a8f76-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025



On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

> There are actually more 'struct' typedefs in the linux header files
> than Russ found in the .c files:

yeah, maybe I should have been less terse. 

Based on past year and change of watching the infiniband mailling list
discussions, my overall belief is that something along the lines of

if you're a 386
typedef int xyz;

if you're some other arch:
typedef struct { int somestuff} xyz;

and then using that in something else, e.g. another struct or a function 
prototype, is just not going to be well received. I may well be wrong, 
some of the discussions get a little abstruse for me, and I ended up 
blowing the email thread away.

ron