From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:25:10 -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: <89f9d0aba6fc6a1e9a43ecb167858477@plan9.ucalgary.ca> Message-ID: References: <89f9d0aba6fc6a1e9a43ecb167858477@plan9.ucalgary.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: 16076876-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, andrey mirtchovski wrote: > i bet the answer is 'that's the way we've always done it' :) google kicks ass once again. when did packed attribute gcc gets: http://www.ohse.de/uwe/articles/gcc-attributes.html follow type attributes to packed: packed Found in versions: 2.7-3.4 Description: This attribute, attached to `struct' or `union' type definition, specifies that each member of the structure or union is placed to minimize the memory required. When attached to an `enum' definition, it indicates that the smallest integral type should be used. so whenever 2.7 came out, left as problem for reader. so we clearly hain't always dun it thet way. ron