On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:37:57PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> On 20/01/14 12:30, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Ah. From so metag is a new arch and not a compiler like the changelog
> > says.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:56:47AM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
> >> struct a {
> >> struct b {
> >> unsigned int x;
> >> unsigned short y;
> >> } x;
> >> unsigned short y;
> >> } __packed;
> >
> > This is not the code we are discussing. It should look like:
> >
> > struct a {
> > union {
> > short x;
> > short y;
> > }
> > short z;
> > };
> >
> > Any normal person would assume that sizeof(struct a) would be 4 but
> > apparently on metag it is 8. That totally defeats the point of using
> > a union in the first place. It's easy enough to add a __packed to the
> > lustre declaration but I expect this to cause an endless stream of bugs.
> >
> > It it is really stupid.
>
> I agree completely (and did request this be changed when I first found
> out about it, but since it's an ABI issue it was really too late).
> That's why I'm not actively pushing for every case to be fixed unless
> it's in generic code that actually affects metag.
>
It would be easy enough to make the compiler complain about any union
which would normally have size which is not a multiple of 4.
Warning: union will be padded with 2 bytes unless __attribute__((packed)).
Otherwise you will be fighting this for ever.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-metag" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
