From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:19:32 -0700 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <9f1dbc022076092306218e169144847b@terzarima.net> Message-ID: References: <9f1dbc022076092306218e169144847b@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: 15ca6cdc-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Charles Forsyth wrote: > that reminds me that, prompted by an aside that brucee made last time > hjdicks came up (so to speak), i had a quick look then at the __packed > attribute (or whatever it was) that gcc implemented, on a few non-x86 > platforms. it seemed to me that it didn't implement it properly either. > in particular, on architectures on which alignment traps might or will > occur for certain unaligned accesses, the code generated made no attempt > to avoid them. neither does ?[acl] as it happens, so at least we're > completely compatible with gcc in one thing. yes, the kernel is supposed to do that fixup on linux. Overall packed is just a mess. ron