On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > We don't fall into any of these cases, and therefore as you say, we > > > don't need packed. Arnd and I have both explained this. So why do you > > > keep arguing that we do need it? > > > > Please show me where I keep arguing that you need it? > > Not explicitly perhaps. But you did write: > > > Doesn't mean that because it used to work that it is strictly correct. > > Wouldn't be the first time that a GCC upgrade broke the kernel because > > the kernel wasn't describing things properly enough. > > which strongly implies that "packed" is needed. You also wrote: In this case ... > > Yes, but that's a consequence of not being able to access those fields > > in their naturally aligned position anymore. Hence the addition of the > > align attribute to tell the compiler that we know that the structure is > > still aligned to a certain degree letting the compiler to avoid > > byte-oriented instructions when possible. > > which is predicated on the assumption that "packed" is needed. ... and also in this case, I was talking about proper use of the packed attribute in general, not at all about a specific case. I wanted to provide a broader view to some people who expressed doubts and misunderstanding in the hope that the archive could keep this knowledge base available. I apologize if that wasn't clear to you. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
