Re: [PATCH] Centralizing understanding of far pointers

[Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko]

2009/7/29 Javier Martín <address@hidden>:
> Robert Millan escribió:
>> First of all, please don't call them far pointers.  They're an i8086 legacy
>> cruft, which have nothing to do with far or close really (although we seem to
>> have some code that makes this reference already).
> So... how do we call them? I am an utter failure at making up sensible
> names.
>
grub_i386_realmode_ptr_t
>> Is there a usefulness in this `raw_bits' member?  It doesn't have any
>> real meaning, as it doesn't correspond to an actual address.
> Mainly, the possibility of checking equality against a particular bit
> pattern without using another instance of the structure/union. Also,
> some code might want to still use the raw bits for some reason, instead
> of either the nearly-opaque handling described above or the more
> detailed view provided by the inner structure.
raw_bits don't seem very useful and using them is error-prone. E.g.
two pointers may reffer to same address even having different
raw_bits. So I would prefer not to include them unless there are real
examples when it's useful

> OK then... That means the code will have to move from i386/pc/memory.h
> to i386/memory.h. And what about x86_64?
Put a memory.h in x86_64/memory.h which will include i386/memory.h



-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git