linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

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]

Message-ID: <44D39658.9080007@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:47:52 +0200
From:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To:	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jes Sorensen <jes@....com> writes:
> 
>> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Jes Sorensen <jes@....com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We know that today long is the only one that differs and that
>>>> m68k has horrible natural alignment rules for historical reasons, but
>>>> besides that it's pretty sane.
>>> Try determining the alignment of u64 on i386.  You will be surprised.
>> If thats the case, then thats really scary :-(
> 
> That's how the ABI is defined.

That the ABI for long long or the ABI for uint64_t? Given that u64 is a
Linux thing, it ought to be ok to do the alignment the right way within
the kernel.

Cheers,
Jes

-
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/