From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 30 01:08:36 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BDF106568B
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D47C8FC17
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id 4B7ED730DA; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:16:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:16:43 +0100
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: current@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20091130011643.GA29020@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: 
Subject: poor struct definition in ipfw (bitfield with enum base type) ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:08:36 -0000

While trying to compile ipfw (userland) with tcc, i hit an issue
on the following struct in ip_fw.h (I think I wrote it):

    typedef struct  _ipfw_insn {    /* template for instructions */
        enum ipfw_opcodes       opcode:8;
        u_int8_t        len;    /* number of 32-bit words */
        u_int16_t       arg1;
    } ipfw_insn;

gcc correctly packs the structure in 4 bytes, however tcc
fails to realize that the enum fits in 8 bits, and uses
the base type (int, which is 32 bit) which results in
the structure using 8 bytes. You can imagine the results.

I wonder if the difference is a bug in 'tcc' or it is one of
those things that are 'implementation-defined' by the C99 standard
(googling around seems to suggest the latter).

grepping through the entire /usr/src shows only one instance of
the above construct (a bitfield using an enum as base type).

To be safe, I'd be inclined to change 'opcode' to uint8_t,
which is non ambiguous and generates the same code on gcc and tcc

cheers
luigi