Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:25:39 -0600 From: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG, fsmp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys lock.h src/sys/i386/include param.h smp.h src/sys/i386/isa apic_ipl.s apic_vector.s ipl.s src/sys/i386/i386 exception.s mp_machdep.c mpapic.c Message-ID: <199707241625.KAA21434@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:17:00 %2B1000." <199707240917.TAA14432@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > > Modified files: > > sys/sys lock.h > > Log: > > Forced 32bit alignment of struct simple_lock. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.5 +3 -2 src/sys/sys/lock.h > > Erm, this is bogus. sys/lock.h is supposed to be machine-independent. It > should have no knowledge of machine-dependent alignment requirements. > Alignment is guaranteed if alignment of the machine-dependent struct is > guaranteed. this I buy, I'll fix it... --- > > Modified files: > > sys/i386/include param.h smp.h > > Log: > > Forced 32bit alignment of struct simple_lock in param.h. > > Alignment of the machine-dependent struct was already guaranteed, since > the struct contains an int, and 32-bit alignment of ints is guaranteed > in practice (although the CPU does not require it) since misalignment > would be inefficient. this I disagree with. I think of it as a comment, forcing the observer to actually think about how the variable is to be used. -- Steve Passe | powered by smp@csn.net | Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707241625.KAA21434>