[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a36CXf+HGgL=nNYzc-1Qhh=tu6to0opwYjO4fO5KDxUDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:34:20 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Alistair Francis <alistair23@...il.com>
Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@....com>,
linux-riscv-bounces@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] riscv/include/uapi: Define a custom __SIGINFO struct
for RV32
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:18 AM Alistair Francis <alistair23@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:47 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:45 PM Alistair Francis <alistair23@...il.com> wrote:
> > > What I don't understand though is how that impacted this struct, it
> > > doesn't use clock_t at all, everything in the struct is an int or
> > > void*.
> >
> > si_utime/si_stime in siginfo are clock_t.
>
> But they are further down the struct. I just assumed that GCC would
> align those as required, I guess it aligns the start of the struct to
> match some 64-bit members which seems strange.
These are the regular struct alignment rules. Essentially you would
get something like
struct s {
int a;
int b;
int c;
union {
int d;
long long e;
};
int f;
};
Since 'e' has 8 byte alignment, the same is true for the union,
and putting the union in a struct also requires the same alignment
for the struct itself, so now you get padding after 'c' and 'f'.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists