> > - PACK_STRUCT_FIELD(struct ip_addr src); > > - PACK_STRUCT_FIELD(struct ip_addr dest); > > + NOPACK_STRUCT_FIELD(struct ip_addr src); > > + NOPACK_STRUCT_FIELD(struct ip_addr dest); > > I'm happy with this in principle - avoiding compiler > warnings, if they're genuine, is on the whole a good idea - > but I don't like the "NOPACK" name. How about calling it > PACK_STRUCT_STRUCTFIELD instead? > Not the most elegant of names perhaps, but better defines > what it's trying to achieve.
And what about the u8_t types, then? If they also don't require packing, we would have to define something like PACK_STRUCT_BYTE_FIELD... Simon _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
