[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070215221839.GA14103@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:18:39 +0000
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:53:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The whole union thing was only needed to get rid of a warning but Marcel's
> > solution does the same thing by attaching the packed keyword to the entire
> > structure instead, so this patch is now using his macros but using __packed
> > instead.
>
> How do we know this trick will work as-designed across all versions of gcc
> and icc (at least) and for all architectures and for all sets of compiler
> options?
>
> Basically, it has to be guaranteed by a C standard. Is it?
Gcc info page says:
[...]
`packed'
The `packed' attribute specifies that a variable or structure field
should have the smallest possible alignment--one byte for a
variable, and one bit for a field, unless you specify a larger
value with the `aligned' attribute.
[...]
Qed?
Ralf
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists