On 8/12/19 8:01 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Instead of declaring the whole structure packed, only declare non-aligned > members packed. This patch is an alternative way to fix the following gcc 9 > compiler warnings: > > eta.c: In function 'calc_thread_status': > eta.c:510:7: error: taking address of packed member of 'struct jobs_eta' may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member] > 510 | je->rate); > | ~~^~~~~~ > eta.c:522:66: error: taking address of packed member of 'struct jobs_eta' may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member] > 522 | calc_rate(unified_rw_rep, disp_time, io_bytes, disp_io_bytes, je->rate); > | ~~^~~~~~ > eta.c:523:64: error: taking address of packed member of 'struct jobs_eta' may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Werror=address-of-packed-member] > 523 | calc_iops(unified_rw_rep, disp_time, io_iops, disp_io_iops, je->iops); > | This seems fragile. Not that we change the struct all the time, or even often, but it'd be easy to add members and end up with different layout on 32-bit vs 64-bit. How do we improve on that? -- Jens Axboe
