> Richard L. Hamilton writes:
> > in the face of future maintenance. I would think
> that the safest,
> > most portable, and least tricky approach might be:
> >
> > struct {
> > uint64_t pad; /* force alignment */
> > uint8_t uf[IEEE80211_MTU_MAX]; /* array exactly the
> right size and type */
> > } b;
> > #define buf b.uf
> >
> > That of course wastes the storage for pad,
>
> Using a union instead fixes that problem.
D'oh (slap!)...thanks, brain asleep.
> I'd still prefer to see a plain uint64_t with a
> rounded-up size.
I'm curious - why?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
