On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> +struct space_resv {
> >>> + __s16 l_type;
> >>> + __s16 l_whence;
> >>> + __s64 l_start;
> >>> + __s64 l_len; /* len == 0 means until end of file */
> >>> + __s32 l_sysid;
> >>> + __u32 l_pid;
> >>> + __s32 l_pad[4]; /* reserve area */
> >>> +};
> >> What about telling the compiler exactly what you said above, just
> >> to be sure we all mean the same thing. (And as documentation for new
> >> comers):
> >>
> >> +struct space_resv_64 {
> >> + __s16 l_type;
> >> + __s16 l_whence;
> >> + __u32 reserved;
> >> + __s64 l_start;
> >> + __s64 l_len; /* len == 0 means until end of file */
> >> + __s32 l_sysid;
> >> + __u32 l_pid;
> >> + __s32 l_pad[4]; /* reserve area */
> >> +} __packed;
> >
> > Because the compiler will assume all fields are always unaligned and will
> > use very
> > suboptimal code to access them?
>
> This discussion comes up every once in a while. I'm using an old FC7 compiler
> (gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-27)) And tests show that when the
> layout
> of a structure is exactly the same the "__packed" on structure declarations
> does
> nothing. It only starts to affect when there are real differences in
> alignment.
> Also tests with gcc 3.4.x showed the same effect.
>
> On previous discussions no one could come forward and say what compiler
> version
> breaks when __packed is applied on structure definition. I'm afraid your
> statement
> above is a myth.
FC7, targeting ia32? Sure, ia32 has no alignment restrictions.
Try e.g. MIPS.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
