Re: Confusing definitions and declarations of mig_dealloc_reply_port()

[Samuel Thibault]

Svante Signell, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 20:03:02 +0100, wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > >   assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > > 
> > > AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_get_reply_port' and
> > > 'mig_dealloc_reply_port' are meant to be paired.
> > 
> > That's probably a good thing to do, yes.
> 
> What's wrong with?
> mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
> assert (port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)

Nothing wrong there. Possibly safer, even.

> Additionally, any strong reason to not change mig??

Having to deal with the introduced incompatibility.

Samuel