Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:27:29 +1100
From:      Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.org, Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@FreeBSD.org>, keramida@FreeBSD.org, arm@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject:   Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm
Message-ID:  <20061113042729.GA79796@duncan.reilly.home>
In-Reply-To: <20061112232854.GC45238@rambler-co.ru>
References:  <20061112132105.6bac38d6@kan.dnsalias.net> <20061112192810.GC1173@rambler-co.ru> <4557825E.3070009@errno.com> <20061112.160539.-1350496508.imp@bsdimp.com> <20061112232854.GC45238@rambler-co.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:28:54AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> We don't have a lot of packed structs yet, and we should certainly
> have more of them.  :-)

Well, packed structs is one (non-portable) way to work around the fact
that C doesn't really support the use of structs for parsing external
(wire, file) data structures.  They're internal-use, abstract devices.  If
you want the code to be portable now and into the future, then you'll use
accessor macros that access the byte-stream explicitly, to build larger
data types.  Won't even have to do anything special for
endian-compatability, that way.

Yes, I realize that that's not the /traditional way/, and that there's a
hell of a lot of inappropriate struct code in there.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061113042729.GA79796>