Messages in this thread | | | From | Segher Boessenkool <> | Subject | Re: [Patch 04/18] include/linux/logfs.h | Date | Tue, 5 Jun 2007 20:49:09 +0200 |
| |
>>> It would be better if GCC had a 'nopadding' attribute which gave us >>> what we need without the _extra_ implications about alignment. >> >> That's impossible; removing the padding from a struct >> _will_ make accesses to its members unaligned (think >> about arrays of that struct). > > It _might_ make accesses to _some_ of its members unaligned.
It _will_ make accesses to _at least one_ of the members unaligned, in the second array element.
> That's why I said 'without the __EXTRA__ implications about alignment'. > > Obviously the lack of padding has its own implications, but we don't > necessarily need to assume that the struct may be at arbitrary > locations.
The compiler does though, if it can't prove otherwise.
What would "nopadding" buy us, anyway?
Segher
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |