On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:49 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > It would be better if GCC had a 'nopadding' attribute which gave us > > what we need without the _extra_ implications about alignment. > > That's impossible; removing the padding from a struct > _will_ make accesses to its members unaligned (think > about arrays of that struct).
It _might_ make accesses to _some_ of its members unaligned. That's why I said 'without the __EXTRA__ implications about alignment'. Obviously the lack of padding has its own implications, but we don't necessarily need to assume that the struct may be at arbitrary locations. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
