Re: New Firewall (hpf) for DragonFlyBSD

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09.01.2004, at 21:25, Sebastien Petit wrote:
> > > Also, using ints to store pointers won't work on all architectures.
> This code is i386 oriented but can be changed for storing pointers 
> with 8
> bytes or more. This is an experimental code, not a definitve one. I 
> try to
> see how I can update it for working under 64 bits architectures. 
> What's the
> architecture concerned by the problem of int for storing pointers ?

I'm not sure if I undestood your question.
int isn't guaranteed to be as wide as a pointer. So you should use 
either void * (or whatever) or long ints (which are IIRC guaranteed to 
be at least as wide as a pointer).

But, why don't you use just a char to index the next level? Okay, it 
might be slower than a direct address because of the additional add + 
multiply, yet, on today's processors this might be acceptable (in 
favour of using much less memory)

cheers
  simon

--
/"\   http://corecode.ath.cx/#donate
\ /
 \     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \  Against HTML Mail and News

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part