linux-kernel - Re: Subtleties of __attribute_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:24:42 +0000
From:	"Phil Endecott" <phil_arcwk_endecott@...zphil.org>
To:	"Frederik Deweerdt" <deweerdt@...e.fr>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Subtleties of __attribute__((packed))

Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:20:41PM +0000, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> I used to think that this:
>> 
>> struct foo {
>>   int a  __attribute__((packed));
>>   char b __attribute__((packed));
>>   ... more fields, all packed ...
>> };
>> 
>> was exactly the same as this:
>> 
>> struct foo {
>>   int a;
>>   char b;
>>   ... more fields ...
>> } __attribute__((packed));
>> 
>> but it is not, in a subtle way.
>> 
> This is likely a gcc bug isn't it? The gcc info page states:
>   Specifying this attribute for `struct' and `union' types is
>   equivalent to specifying the `packed' attribute on each of the
>   structure or union members.

A gcc *documentation* bug?

I asked on the gcc list about this before posting here, and although 
replies are still coming in the first opinion was "it's doing exactly 
what you asked it to do".

Phil.




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/