lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sizeof problem in kernel modules
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Previous to the "Draft" "Proposal" of C98, there were no such
> requirements. And so-called ANSI -C specifically declined to
> define any order within structures.

As one of the founding members of the X3J11 ANSI committee, and having served
on the committee for 10 1/2 years, I can state categorically that Appendix A of
the original K&R (which was one of the 3 base documents for ANSI C) had the
requirement that non-bitfield fields are required to have monotonically
increasing addresses (bitfields don't have addresses, and different compiler
ABIs do lay them out in different fashions within the words). C89 never
changed the wording that mandates this.

--
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc. (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work: meissner@redhat.com phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org fax: +1 978-692-4482
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.159 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site