| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:17:33 +0100 From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org> To: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, open-osd development <osd-dev@...n-osd.org>, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>, FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, Sami.Iren@...gate.com, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18 ver2] libosd: OSDv1 Headers On Mon, 10 November 2008 10:47:07 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > If the assembly - size and offsets - of foo is exactly the same with or > without the __packed, but the generated code is different then clearly this > is a compiler bug. I've herd of this myth before, and at least with my > gcc 4.1.2 there is no such bug. Either the structure gets packed, or there is > no difference. All the places I have __packed in the code are absolutely must > be so, stated by the protocol. Ok, if current compilers are fine, I won't complain. Jörn -- There's nothing better for promoting creativity in a medium than making an audience feel "Hmm I could do better than that!" -- Douglas Adams in a slashdot interview -- 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