Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> It sounds to me like the alignment of an incomplete type is not
>> guaranteed (as you can't even enquire about it, though I might be
>> wrong). This is probably dependent on the compiler as well - with
>> gcc-3.3 on x86, __alignof__(unsigned long long) is 8 but the
>> "offsetof(struct test, data)" below is 12 (and it doesn't make any
>> difference whether it is a 0-size array or not):
>>
>> struct test {
>> unsigned long a;
>> unsigned long b;
>> unsigned long c;
>> unsigned long long data[];
>> };
>
> data[0] and data[1] or whatever will also give you offset of 12. Dunno
> why, but it is. Anyways, whatever the wording in the manual is,
> flexible arrays just have to have the required alignment to do its job
> as advertised. :-)
On ARM (with gcc-4) it gives 16 for both offsetof and sizeof.
>> I did a quick grep through the kernel and it looks like Linux mainly
>> uses 0-size rather than flexible arrays at the end of a structure
>> (>500 vs ~14). This might be for historical reasons but it's not a big
>> issue in modifying them.
>
> I think it's mostly historical. Flexible array is still a relatively
> new thing. I don't mind changing devres to zero sized array, but please
> explain in the commit message and as a comment that the choice is for
> kmemleak's container_of(), and cc Greg K-H as the change should probably
> go through his tree.
OK. I'll probably wait until I post a new version of kmemleak against
2.6.21-rcX.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
