Em 11-04-2012 15:47, Rémi Denis-Courmont escreveu: > Hello, > > Le mercredi 11 avril 2012 20:02:00 Mauro Carvalho Chehab, vous avez écrit : >> Using unsigned instead of enum is not a good idea, from API POV, as >> unsigned has different sizes on 32 bits and 64 bits. > > Fair enough. But then we can do that instead: > typedef XXX __enum_t; > where XXX is the unsigned integer with the right number of bits. Since Linux > does not use short enums, this ought to work fine. I forgot to comment about that on the last e-mail. A solution close to the above one were already proposed: http://www.spinics.net/lists/vfl/msg25707.html There were also another proposal there that might solve: http://www.spinics.net/lists/vfl/msg25702.html Something like: #if sizeof(enum) == 1 typedef u8 __enum_t; #elif sizeof(enum) == 2 typedef u16 __enum_t; #elif sizeof(enum) == 4 typedef u32 __enum_t; #elif sizeof(enum) == 8 typedef u64 __enum_t; #else typedef enum __enum_t; #endif Can actually work. Not sure if I really like adding a typedef, but maybe this is the less dirty way to fix it. We'll need to properly test the v4l2-compat32 code, as it will need to handle a different enum size on userspace. So, there, we'll likely need to replace every enum with just "u32". Hmm... arm with 64 bits (if/when added) may be an additional issue for the compat stuff. Regards, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
