On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and > > stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ? Then you need one bit > > which ought to be safe for everyone (and if the bit is a macro any CPU > > warped enough to have byte alignment is surely going to have top bits > > spare...) > > Well, quite frankly, equally easy is to just add a > > __attribute__((aligned(4))) > > or whatever the gcc syntax for that is today.. That guarantees that gcc > lays things out properly. For structures, not array elements or stack objects. Does gcc now get aligned correct as an attribute on a stack object ? Still doesn't answer the rather more important question - why not just stick a NULL on the end instead of all the nutty hacks ? - 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/
