On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 21:52:04 +0100 (CET), Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> after general heated discussion it seems that this is the > save way to go. Please apply. You still haven't demonstrated a failure case. Until proven, this is absolutely unnecessary. I actually paid attention to RMK's comments before dismissing his ideas, and he never said that any real problem existed. All the wrote was that gcc on ARM makes structs bigger. But there never was any problem with the field layout. If it makes you feel better, find places which take sizeof of this structure and use defined size (which is there in headers specifically for this reason), like Stern said. -- Pete P.S. I saw the David B. advocated using ((packed)) in _all_ structures which used to "talk to hardware" and I strongly disagree. I did not reply to his message, because I could not imagine that you would go ahead with this stupidity. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
