Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:04:12 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au, jkoshy@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include ar.h Message-ID: <20061116090412.GB37133@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20061113.101958.-861030824.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <3801.1163410519@critter.freebsd.dk> <20061113214928.P76443@delplex.bde.org> <20061113.101958.-861030824.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:19:58AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : BTW, you are responsible for the __packed in <netinet/ip.h>. Please remove > : it. The __CTASSERT() is enough to detect if heroic packing is ever needed. > : The only danger is if something has grown to depend on __packed reducing > : alignment as a side effect. E.g., suppose we had a byte string containing > : a bytewise copy of a struct ip. If the copy might be misaligned, then it > : should be copied to an actual struct ip before accessing it as a struct, > : but code that accesses it directly using ((struct ip *)&bs[N]) would work > : now due to the reduced alignment. Places that really need __packed should > : probably use __aligned() to restore the natural alignment. > > DO NOT REMOVE IT. IT IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FOR ARM TO WORK RIGHT. > If you want to remove it, then you must make sure arm works right > after it because I'll add it back. Many years ago I was taught that comments in code could help to avoid such clashes in software development. Is this true no more? ;-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061116090412.GB37133>