lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Patch 04/18] include/linux/logfs.h
Date
>>> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-05 20:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site