Hi!
> > > hm. So if I have
> > >
> > > struct bar {
> > > unsigned long b;
> > > } __attribute__((packed));
> > >
> > > struct foo {
> > > unsigned long u;
> > > struct bar b;
> > > };
> > >
> > > then the compiler can see that foo.b.b is well-aligned, regardless of the
> > > packedness.
> > >
> > > Plus some crazy people compile the kernel with icc (or at least they used
> > > to). What happens there?
> >
> > A quick grep for __attribute__((packed)) and __packed find around 900 hits,
> > I'd probably find more if I'd look for syntactical variations. Some hits
> > are in arch/{i386,x86_64,ia64}. At a glance it seems hard to configure a
> > useful x86 kernel that doesn't involve any packed attribute. I take that
> > as statistical proof that icc either has doesn't really work for building
> > the kernel or groks packing. Any compiler not implementing gcc extensions
> > is lost at building the kernel but that's old news.
> >
>
> No, icc surely supports attribute(packed). My point is that we shouldn't
> rely upon the gcc info file for this, because other compilers can (or
> could) be used to build the kernel.
Well, icc should be gcc compatible. If it is not, it is icc bug.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
