Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:50:10 -0500 From: Matt Rowley <matt@arin.net> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 and Adaptec raidutils (again) Message-ID: <22C3670E71A83C719BAC25E9@elric.arin.net> In-Reply-To: <41C30321.5060209@freebsd.org> References: <A6125B2CFEDE2BEDF10D9FA6@elric.arin.net> <20041211004038.GC50516@dragon.nuxi.com> <11A4B937C9C745F2DD5B75EC@elric.arin.net> <20041217081458.GB10368@dan.emsphone.com> <41C30321.5060209@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Yes; you can work around it by declaring a temp variable, assigning it >> the value of attachedTo, making whatever modification is necessary, >> then assigning attachedTo=temp. Do this every time you get that error. >> You /might/ also be able to just remove the PACKed attribute from the >> attachedTo field, but that will cause havoc if the struct is supposed >> to line up with something generated by the card. >> > > I'd highly recommend against removing the packed attribute. :) It does compile, when you remove packed. After commenting out the unneeded semaphore union struct in basic.hh, the whole thing compiles. The resulting raidutil binary spews out the same error as the one from the current binary port about "Engine connect failed: COMPATIBILITY number"... but that's to be expected. Scott, is Dan's suggestion about using a temp variable and to stop passing by reference the right way to go? --Matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22C3670E71A83C719BAC25E9>