On Wednesday 06 June 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> And if I had something like this (which is admittedly contrived, but
> hardware people _do_ do stupid things to us):
> { uint32_t, uint8_t, uint16_t, uint8_t, uint32_t, uint32_t }
>
> With the 'packed' attribute the compiler would assume arbitrary
> alignment of all the 32-bit integers. But in reality it's only necessary
> for the uint16_t in the middle. A 'nopadding' attribute would deal with
> that correctly.
I would argue that a newly invented 'nopadding' attribute should reject
such a structure as invalid, because it should not let members be
unaligned. Unfortunately, this also gets tricky if you consider
struct {
uint32_t a;
uint64_t b;
uint32_t c;
};
which does have an unaligned member by default in i386, but not on
any modern platform.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
