On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ? Then you need one bit
which ought to be safe for everyone (and if the bit is a macro any CPU
warped enough to have byte alignment is surely going to have top bits
spare...)
Well, quite frankly, equally easy is to just add a
__attribute__((aligned(4)))
or whatever the gcc syntax for that is today.. That guarantees that gcc
lays things out properly.
For structures, not array elements or stack objects. Does gcc now get
aligned correct as an attribute on a stack object ?
Still doesn't answer the rather more important question - why not just
stick a NULL on the end instead of all the nutty hacks ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
