On 9/21/07, Kieran Mansley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do find it a little odd that the compiler thinks these types do not > need packing though. Although gcc might align things to the natural > size of the type (and so u8_t will always be "packed") I don't think > it's a definite requirement that a compiler do this.
Keiran, My understanding of gcc is that u8_t is naturally packed, unless you change it's alignment with __attribute__((align)) The definition of the struct needs packing specified if that is what you want. Each instance of that struct will then be consistent. In reply to your other email, I don't really like the NOPACK_* name either, but other options I came up with seemed to get rather long. I can regenerate the patch with an alternate name if there is agreement. I'm happy to post patches inline, as attachments or just put them in the tracker. Most projects I've been involved with prefer inline so that's my default behaviour. I didn't put them in the patch tracker as they seemed to fit the "Trivial patches" category in this section of the wiki http://lwip.scribblewiki.com/Contributing_to_lwIP. All comments appreciated, this is healthy "peer review" and not taken as criticism. Andrew _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
