Skip to content

Fix FreeBSD ioctl request constants #1025

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix FreeBSD ioctl request constants #1025

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dcuddeback
Copy link

On FreeBSD ioctl() is defined as taking c_ulong as the request parameter:

fn ioctl(fd: c_int, request: c_ulong, ...) -> c_int

Constants meant to be passed as the request parameter were being defined as a mixture of c_uint and c_ulong, which can cause type errors. For example, the following program

extern crate libc;

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        libc::ioctl(1, libc::TIOCEXCL);
    }
}

results in a type error:

error[E0308]: mismatched types
 --> src/main.rs:5:24
  |
5 |         libc::ioctl(1, libc::TIOCEXCL);
  |                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected u64, found u32

This commit changes ioctl request constants on FreeBSD to c_ulong, which fixes the compilation error in the above test program.

On FreeBSD `ioctl()` is defined as taking `c_ulong` as the `request`
parameter:

    fn ioctl(fd: c_int, request: c_ulong, ...) -> c_int

Constants meant to be passed as the `request` parameter should be
defined as `c_ulong` to avoid requiring explicit type casts. These
constants were being defined as a mixture of `c_uint` and `c_ulong`.
This commit changes ioctl request constants on FreeBSD to `c_ulong`.
@rust-highfive
Copy link

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@dcuddeback
Copy link
Author

Duplicate of #704. Sorry, I overlooked that there was an existing PR before opening this one.

@dcuddeback dcuddeback closed this Jun 21, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants