Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:50:46 +0000 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations. |
| |
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 - 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/
|  |