On Wed, Oct 30 2019, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 10/30/19 7:58 PM, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> super-intel often takes the address of a packed member, >> and seems to work. >> So suppress this warning. >> (Earlier gcc ignore the new flag) >> >> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> > > I am kinda in two minds about this. I started cleaning up some of the > newer gcc stuff a while ago, but then got stuck on super-intel.c > > I want the code to build, but I also feel super-intel.c needs cleaning > up and made to use accessor functions or something like that to deal > with these accesses in a better way? > > Thoughts? > I wonder how much we really need the __attribute((packed)) ... The structures look well organized and dense to me. Maybe remove the attribute and add a BUILD_BUG_ON() if the sizeof() is wrong?? NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
