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]
    ©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans