[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> I forgot to comment on that one, sorry.
> If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the
> bits field size into account, or did I miss something?

So, if you do the following,

struct {
struct {
int i;
long ar[];
} B;
long __ar_storage[32];
} A;
It should always be safe to dereference[31]. I'm not sure
whether this is something guaranteed by C tho. Maybe compilers are
allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend
on the above.



 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-04 00:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean