From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  5 Jul 2005 11:27:13 -0400
From: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@gmx.net>
To: David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question
Message-ID: <20050705152713.GA12762@ionkov.net>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.61.0507011316130.8592@malasada.lava.net>
	<09405af8d5c18c32321c0de7b2fd90d3@terzarima.net>
	<3e1162e6050704193649539ee@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e6050704193649539ee@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 61b14c90-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

An example:

	typedef struct {
		....
		arch_vcpu_info_t arch;
	} vcpu_info_t;

For x86_32 and x86_64 arch_vcpu_info_t is defined as:

	typedef struct {
	} arch_vcpu_info_t;

    Lucho

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:36:58PM -0700, David Leimbach said:
> On 7/2/05, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> > >>it cant be worked around without breaking the cross
> > >>platform features of their headers.
> > 
> > sounds brilliantly portable to me.
> > what do they do?  insert 0-length padding areas
> > to make these structures `portable'?
> > 
> > 
> Yeah, it's undefined what happens if a struct is empty in C99. Seems a
> really silly thing for someone to rely on.  What are they trying to
> accomplish?  The only thing I can think of is some kind of type safety
> based on a tag generated for a unique "struct".  They should probably
> make it wrap a void * or something.