[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementatio

To: Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations.
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:18:39 +0000
Cc: Atsushi Nemoto <>,,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:53:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > The whole union thing was only needed to get rid of a warning but Marcel's
> > solution does the same thing by attaching the packed keyword to the entire
> > structure instead, so this patch is now using his macros but using __packed
> > instead.
> How do we know this trick will work as-designed across all versions of gcc
> and icc (at least) and for all architectures and for all sets of compiler
> options?
> Basically, it has to be guaranteed by a C standard.  Is it?

Gcc info page says:

     The `packed' attribute specifies that a variable or structure field
     should have the smallest possible alignment--one byte for a
     variable, and one bit for a field, unless you specify a larger
     value with the `aligned' attribute.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>