From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size.
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:39:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4246D3BE.3050504@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <16964.33214.921809.324278@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <74f362598b4e1a0d46aacb1a514706ac@cl.cam.ac.uk> <16964.41853.43756.836319@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503261029270.23670@enigma.lanl.gov> <16965.40068.388024.929154@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <21eeeb49a66395420f0c47c7d5327630@cl.cam.ac.uk> <4245FDF0.5040909@blueyonder.co.uk> <c4e23e3538e10be2da8052b736231f92@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <c4e23e3538e10be2da8052b736231f92@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
To: xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2005, at 00:27, David Hopwood wrote:
>> Keir Fraser wrote:
>>> On 26 Mar 2005, at 17:31, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Few things to note:
>>>>>> 1) packed is [un]necessary since the ABI will do the right thing
>>>
>>> I prefer to pack things explicitly rather than rely on ABI padding.
>>
>> If you use -Wpadded when compiling with gcc then you're not relying on
>> ABI padding; you're automatically checking that it is not used. That
>> would seem to be precisely what is required here.
> 
> If I could specify it on a per-struct basis then it would be perfect.

There is no way to selectively enable/disable warnings in gcc:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9049>  :-(

OTOH, spurious warnings for padding in private structures cause no real
harm. If only a few private structures are involved, you could add dummy
padding to those anyway.

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk>



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click