From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 12 17:14:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arm@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437E416A403; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:14:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (relay0.rambler.ru [81.19.66.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7285843D46; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:14:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ru@rambler-co.ru) Received: from relay0.rambler.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9347D5E5E; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:14:33 +0300 (MSK) Received: from edoofus.park.rambler.ru (unknown [81.19.65.108]) by relay0.rambler.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713D35E5C; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:14:33 +0300 (MSK) Received: (from ru@localhost) by edoofus.park.rambler.ru (8.13.8/8.13.8) id kACHEbRQ053693; Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:14:37 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from ru) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:14:37 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Giorgos Keramidas , arm@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061112171436.GF50349@rambler-co.ru> References: <20061112133929.9194773068@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20061112140010.GA47660@rambler-co.ru> <20061112142710.GE91556@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <20061112133929.9194773068@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20061112140010.GA47660@rambler-co.ru> <20061112144230.GC2331@kobe.laptop> <20061112145151.GC49703@rambler-co.ru> <20061112151150.GA2988@kobe.laptop> <20061112155723.GB50349@rambler-co.ru> <20061112165904.GP6501@plum.flirble.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tMbDGjvJuJijemkf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061112165904.GP6501@plum.flirble.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: No virus found Cc: Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:14:44 -0000 --tMbDGjvJuJijemkf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 04:59:04PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 06:57:23PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > So your sizeof() argument, well... I don't understand it and it > > doesn't make things clearer at least to me. I still believe this > > is bug in GCC that the alignment requirement is so high for a > > "struct foo { char x; }" (there's no real reason for this!). >=20 > It is no bug in GCC. ANSI C gives extreme flexibility for the compiler to > align (or pad) structures. The assumptions in the code you presented are = not > portable. The problem tends to be that ARM is the only common platform th= at > does structure alignment this way, so tends to trip up a lot of code that > has worked just fine in many other places. >=20 > There is a lot more detail in > http://netwinder.osuosl.org/users/b/brianbr/public_html/alignment.html > including how gcc's __packed__ extention can be used to tell gcc to align > structures in different ways. >=20 Thanks! Item 2 at this URL has an answer to my question. Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --tMbDGjvJuJijemkf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFV1Z8qRfpzJluFF4RAnrMAJsHxnuDRsfSADbZhIuqVaSalcaOdACfZkqZ zHQkfDktO4QwcnjRNJPs1iE= =9vjp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tMbDGjvJuJijemkf--