Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:34:28 -0800 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, stefanf@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <43F04494.4030900@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060213082129.GA13997@flame.pc> References: <20060205084813.GN21806@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <867j89n71d.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060205220211.GA5151@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20060213.002310.125802352.imp@bsdimp.com> <20060213082129.GA13997@flame.pc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2006-02-13 00:23, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> struct foo foo; >> uint32_t value[sizeof(foo) / sizeof(uint32_t)]; >> >> memcpy(value, &foo); >> // write out value one 32-bit word at a time >> >> Is that right? Or at least 'proper' here means defined. > > AFAIK, yes. I agree that the behaviour of the above code is defined, but I'd be much happier if value[] was defined to be an array of length ((sizeof(foo) - 1) / sizeof(uint32_t) + 1), just in case sizeof(foo) happens to not be a multiple of 4. :-) Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43F04494.4030900>