From: "'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'" <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:36:28 -0200
> So, no padding. A field just after the other, which is what we want on a > network header. It isn't necessary! Show me a case where it is required when you use properly fixed sized types and a proper ordering of the struct members. No padding is going in there, go and check. Do we splatter __packed all over our ipv4/ipv6 header, TCP header, UDP header, etc. structures? No, we don't because it's totally unecessary. I will not accept __packed being used unless it is absolutely, provably, the only way to solve a particular problem. And when that does happen, I am going to require a huge comment explaining in detail why this is the case, and why no other approach or solution solved the problem.
