Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 12 Jul 2004 02:04:45 -0400
From:      Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: nevermind Re: allocating a spare from kinfo_proc.
Message-ID:  <p06110409bd17d7ec153c@[128.113.24.47]>
In-Reply-To: <20040712055033.GA95729@elvis.mu.org>
References:  <20040712041539.GW95729@elvis.mu.org> <20040712045053.GY95729@elvis.mu.org> <p06110407bd17cd88a5ca@[128.113.24.47]> <20040712055033.GA95729@elvis.mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:50 PM -0700 7/11/04, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>* Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> [040711 22:23] wrote:
>  > >* Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> [040711 21:15] wrote:
>
>>  > > Are there any guidelines for adjusting this struct that I
>>  > > should be aware of?
>>
>>  It would be nice to make sure that alignment issues are not wasting
>>  space on *any* of the platforms.  When I made my recent changes to
>>  user.h, I had a program which printed out all the variables and
>>  their alignments.  If I have time this week I will update that
>>  program and see what it says on the different hardware platforms.
>
>I think we're ok since sizeof(long) == sizeof(void *) on all the
>platforms I could test.  And the compiler is likely to align
>a new pointer in that location in the same spot as the array.
>
>At least it would make sense if it did. :)

It should be fine.  I just wanted to mention this issue as a
"general guideline for adjusting this struct"...

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06110409bd17d7ec153c>