Yes, that's understood. I'm just responding to the notion that it's a
bug for a package author to expect the compiler to do the right thing.
On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 15:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Dan Kortschak
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This ignores the possibil
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Dan Kortschak
wrote:
>
> This ignores the possibility that more than one alignment-sensitive
> field might be needed. Requiring that they all be up front, potentially
> degrading readability flies in the face of the design principles of the
> language. This kind fo
This ignores the possibility that more than one alignment-sensitive
field might be needed. Requiring that they all be up front, potentially
degrading readability flies in the face of the design principles of the
language. This kind foot-gun in other languages is why many people
choose Go.
On Tue,
It’s a bug in the library if it uses 64 bit atomic operations without ensuring
64 bit alignment. Putting the alignment-required field at the top of the struct
is the traditional method.
//jb
On 14 Aug 2018, at 08:45, Stephan Mühlstrasser
mailto:stephan.muehlstras...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Am Mont
Another option may be to run 32 bit raspberian OS and compile in a virtual
machine and compile it there, perhaps. VirtualBox comes to mind.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Stephan Mühlstrasser <
stephan.muehlstras...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Am Montag, 13. August 2018 22:36:56 UTC+2 schrieb Dave C
