On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:24:06AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > On some versions and architectures. Can you guarantee that you will
> > notice when an exception appears?
>
> Again, show me the assembler output exhibiting the lack of
> initialization, for this specific structure and situation.
>
> That's all that I'm asking.
... and then we can file a bug report against the sodding compiler. Note
that
struct ethtool_wolinfo {
__u32 cmd;
__u32 supported;
__u32 wolopts;
__u8 sopass[SOPASS_MAX]; // 6, actually
};
is not going to *have* padding. Not on anything even remotely sane.
If array of 6 char as member of a struct requires 64bit alignment on some
architecture, I would really like some of what the designers of that ABI
must have been smoking.
Initializer might be allowed to leave padding uninitialized. But all fields
_must_ be initialized, the missing initializers treated exactly as they
would've been for a static-duration object (C99 6.7.8p19). And that is
going to cover everything in that sucker. It's not a function of compiler -
only of C ABI on given target.
