On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> Like this?
>
> struct message_storage {
> unsigned char reserved[MSG_HEADROOM];
> struct ptp_message msg __attribute__ ((aligned (8)));
> };
Yes, assuming that makes gcc happy again.
> It was meant as a protection
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:11:07AM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:25:18PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > @@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ int assume_two_step = 0;
> > struct message_storage {
> > unsigned char reserved[MSG_HEADROOM];
> > struct ptp_message msg;
> > -} PACK
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:25:18PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> @@ -37,7 +38,7 @@ int assume_two_step = 0;
> struct message_storage {
> unsigned char reserved[MSG_HEADROOM];
> struct ptp_message msg;
> -} PACKED;
> +};
Is there a better way? How about dropping PACKED but adding a
This fixes "taking address of packed member ... may result in an
unaligned pointer value [-Waddress-of-packed-member]" warnings from gcc.
Signed-off-by: Miroslav Lichvar
---
clock.c | 4 +++-
msg.c | 7 ++-
tlv.c | 6 +++---
util.h | 2 +-
4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(
