From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ronald G Minnich Subject: Re: 32/64-bit hypercall interface Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:39:24 -0600 Message-ID: <433DA27C.5060408@lanl.gov> References: <17213.23513.807124.448770@kitch0.watson.ibm.com> <433D9A9B.3050103@lanl.gov> <200509301528.06152.hollisb@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200509301528.06152.hollisb@us.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Jimi Xenidis , Ian Pratt , Andrei Petrov , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Friday 30 September 2005 15:05, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > >>Jimi Xenidis wrote: >> >>> KF> When we previously had this, by defining packed structs, there were >>> KF> plenty of screams that it wasn't ANSI compliant, and that >>>performance KF> sucks on some architectures. >>> >>>Tou use a research term, "thats just ka-ka" :) >>>Packed in no way solves the problem of selecting the appropriate types. >> >>no, it's not ka ka at all. I had huge troubles with plan 9 c and the way >>that the linux structs were packed via the use of gcc struct packing. I >>am really glad packed went away. > > > I think you misunderstand: Jimi is also glad. Read again: the packed GCC > attribute does not solve the problem. > That figures. I am really sorry it's monday. thanks ron p.s. jimix, whereever you may be, I'm sorry.