On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:14:50AM -0400, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> There were a number of warnings which read something like
> "structure padded for alignment of member value in debug.h"
>
> This can be trivially fixed by reordering the structure members ( I hope).
> This patch works fine on cygwin, but I would like to see some other
> platforms (especially 64 bit) try it out to see
> 1.) does it compile without those warnings (although, there will be
> structure padding warnings, just not for individual members).
on ARM, lots of these two:
In file included from ../include/parrot/register.h:16,
from ../include/parrot/interpreter.h:42,
from ../include/parrot/parrot.h:160,
from array.c:27:
.../include/parrot/string.h:59: warning: padding struct size to alignment boundary
In file included from ../include/parrot/interpreter.h:51,
from ../include/parrot/parrot.h:160,
from array.c:27:
.../include/parrot/debug.h:55: warning: padding struct size to alignment boundary
/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.0 pmc2c.pl boolean.pmc
string.h:
56 /* Tail added to end of string buffers; used for COW GC */
57 struct Buffer_Tail {
58 unsigned char flags;
59 };
on ARM structures all align on 4 bytes, and so pad to a multiple of 4 bytes
Even that one.
Yep. legal ANSI C.
Likewise
debug.c:
50 typedef struct PDB_condition {
51 void *value;
52 PDB_condition_ptr next;
53 unsigned short type;
54 unsigned char reg;
55 } PDB_condition_t;
In order, the other significant compiler warnings I see are:
perlhash.pmc: In function `Parrot_PerlHash_get_pmc_keyed':
perlhash.pmc:192: warning: passing arg 2 of pointer to function from incompatible
pointer type
191 return entry->val.pmc_val->vtable->get_pmc_keyed(INTERP,
192 entry, nextkey);
No idea
All 4 structs end with char members:
include/parrot/jit.h:36: warning: padding struct size to alignment boundary
include/parrot/jit.h:128: warning: padding struct size to alignment boundary
include/parrot/jit.h:150: warning: padding struct size to alignment boundary
include/parrot/jit.h:205: warning: padding struct size to alignment boundary
resources.c: In function `mem_allocate':
resources.c:147: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
resources.c: In function `compact_pool':
resources.c:231: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
resources.c:261: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
resources.c:288: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
resources.c:307: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
147 ((struct Buffer_Tail*)((char *)return_val + size - 1))->flags = 0;
231 (struct Buffer_Tail *)((char *)b->bufstart +b->buflen);
259 struct Buffer_Tail *new_tail =
260 (struct Buffer_Tail *)((char *)cur_spot +
261 b->buflen);
288 b = (Buffer *)((char*)b + object_size);
307 (struct Buffer_Tail *)((char *)cur_spot + b->buflen);
headers.c: In function `add_extra_buffer_header':
headers.c:424: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
424 ptr = (void**)((char*)headers->bufstart + headers->buflen - sizeof(void*));
dod.c: In function `free_unused_buffers':
dod.c:431: warning: cast increases required alignment of target type
431 b = (Buffer *)((char *)b + object_size);
> 2.) does it pass all tests
Yes. (well, no change - there's one failure I really must find tuits to
investigate, which I put down either to compiler or local hardware bug,
but your patch doesn't change that)
Nicholas Clark
--
Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
