All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
To: Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/5] unaligned: introduce common header
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:51:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1226343084.22742.11.camel@brick> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a5b0800811101035i721f1befi79ff76f9169fef4c@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 18:35 +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In this particular case, packed isn't right as you know big_data is
> > aligned (as long as you can guarantee the struct alignment), so you'd
> > probably want:
> >
> > struct foo {
> >        u64 big_data;
> >        u8 small_data;
> >        u32 medium_data __attribute__((__packed__));
> > }
> >
> > But that's not what we're talking about in the kernel's case.
> 
> Perhaps that would be a neater way of expressing what is required in
> my simple example, but it's fairly common to use packed on the whole
> struct which could be because a field that is "packed" by default on
> one architecture might not be on another. You could mark every field
> as packed but few people seem to do that and as far as I am aware
> there is no documented difference between packing all members and the
> whole struct. The gcc documentation for packed is pretty short:

Actually it's documented that putting attribute(packed) on the struct
is equivalent to putting attribute(packed) on _every_ member of the
struct.

>   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.
> 
> I'd love to know if the pointer alignment behaviour is widespread and
> then maybe write a patch for the gcc manual.

Well, it's kind of the whole point of __packed isn't it?  Otherwise the
struct members get naturally (or some arch-dependent value) aligned,
which the compiler can rely on unless you say __packed.

So in my example above, the compiler _knows_ how it has aligned
big_data and small_data and can use whatever access is most efficient,
but it can't make any assumptions about medium_data, so access through
a pointer _must_ be done unaligned.

struct foo *bar;
bar->medium_data; // compiler must do this unaligned

Harvey


  reply	other threads:[~2008-11-10 18:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-11-05 18:16 [RFC-PATCH 1/5] unaligned: introduce common header Harvey Harrison
     [not found] ` <87a5b0800811080447m2cebebb7j77afe9592f72ab11@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]   ` <1226290940.5478.3.camel@brick>
2008-11-10 11:49     ` Will Newton
2008-11-10 16:51       ` Harvey Harrison
2008-11-10 18:35         ` Will Newton
2008-11-10 18:51           ` Harvey Harrison [this message]
2008-11-11  9:50             ` Will Newton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1226343084.22742.11.camel@brick \
    --to=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=will.newton@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.