Re: Eliminating grub_size_t

[Isaac Dupree]

> > > size_t has different size on 32-bit and 64-bit systems, but we should
> > > strive to make the userspace utilities work like the bootloader, so that
> > > possible problems can be detected early and debugged easily.
> > I didn't understand this. What do you mean with "US working like the
> > bootloader?"
>
> I mean that if, say, GRUB fails to read reiserfs, I'd like to be able to 
> reproduce the problem in grub-fstest even if I'm compiling it on x86_64.

In this case, so we're producing a 32-bit, pc grub image.  To have a 
similar effect in grub-fstest, we'd need to define grub_size_t to be a 
32-bit quantity when compiling that too, am I right?  Is there any 
reason not to just have grub-fstest try to imitate whatever the 
bootloader image decides it needs?  So if some platform requires a 
64-bit bootloader and we're running on 32-bits, we may need a 64-bit 
grub_size_t in both places (well, this is maybe not likely to work 
entirely, but GCC can generate the operations -- or we could just use 32 
bit for grub-fstest then if we think it's the least-nonsensical thing to 
do in that hypothetical situation).

-Isaac