On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 15:59, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:25:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 12 November 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > It is a bad idea to describe device registers using C structures, and
>> > especially enums.
>> >
>> > The only thing C guarantees about structure layout is that the elements
>> > are arranged in the same order which you specify them in your definition.
>> > It doesn't make any guarantees about placement of those elements within
>> > the structure.
>>
>> Right, I got carried away when seeing the macro overload. My example
>> would work on a given architecture since the ABI is not changing, but
>> we should of course not advocate nonportable code.
>
> That is a mistake. ÂYou can't rely on architectures not changing their
> ABIs. ÂSee ARM as an example where an ABI change has already happened.
>
> We actually have two ABIs at present - one ('native ARM') where enums
> are sized according to the size of their values, and the Linux one
> where we guarantee that enums are always 'int'.
JFYI, on ppc64 there are 64-bit enum values, which sparse complains about.
But gcc handles them fine.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
            Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
