Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:43:36 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: cperciva@freebsd.org Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, arch@freebsd.org, stefanf@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060213.094336.118368793.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <43F04494.4030900@freebsd.org> References: <20060213.002310.125802352.imp@bsdimp.com> <20060213082129.GA13997@flame.pc> <43F04494.4030900@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <43F04494.4030900@freebsd.org>
Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> writes:
: Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
: > On 2006-02-13 00:23, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
: >> struct foo foo;
: >> uint32_t value[sizeof(foo) / sizeof(uint32_t)];
: >>
: >> memcpy(value, &foo);
: >> // write out value one 32-bit word at a time
: >>
: >> Is that right? Or at least 'proper' here means defined.
: >
: > AFAIK, yes.
:
: I agree that the behaviour of the above code is defined, but
: I'd be much happier if value[] was defined to be an array of
: length ((sizeof(foo) - 1) / sizeof(uint32_t) + 1), just in
: case sizeof(foo) happens to not be a multiple of 4. :-)
It won't matter given how I'm going to fix this problem...
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060213.094336.118368793.imp>