Hi!
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 02:14:39PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Mahesh Jagannath Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> > On 08/08/2018 08:12 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >>> + uint8_t reserved_1[6];
> >>> + __be64 effective_address;
> >>> + __be64 logical_address;
> >>> + } ue_error;
> >>> + struct {
> >>> + uint8_t soft_err_type;
> >>> + /* XXXXXXXX
> >>> + * X 1: Effective address provided.
> >>> + * XXXXX 5: Reserved.
> >>> + * XX 2: Type of SLB/ERAT/TLB error.
> >>> + */
> >>> + uint8_t reserved_1[6];
> >>> + __be64 effective_address;
> >>> + uint8_t reserved_2[8];
> >>> + } soft_error;
> >>> + } u;
> >>> +};
> >>> +#pragma pack(pop)
> >>
> >> Why not __packed ?
> >
> > Because when used __packed it added 1 byte extra padding between
> > reserved_1[6] and effective_address. That caused wrong effective address
> > to be printed on the console. Hence I switched to #pragma pack to force
> > 1 byte alignment for this structure alone.
>
> OK, that's weird.
Yes, if that is true, then please open a GCC bugzilla report.
Segher
