On 2011-08-25 15:15, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/25/2011 04:07 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> On 08/25/2011 08:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 08/25/2011 03:38 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> What a mess. Do we really have to go through all 257 packed data >>>> structs >>>> >> in QEMU and add these MS compat bits to all potentially affected >>>> ones? >>>> > I prefer to detect -mms-bitfields and remove it in configure. >>> >>> Can use -mno-ms-bitfields later to override it. >> >> No, we can't do that. >> >> The reason glib uses -mms-bitfields is that you need to use it in >> order to call Windows APIs which is does. We will eventually need to >> do it anyway. > > I meant, just for our own objects. As long as there are no glib APIs > which use bitfields, it should work. > > However, I don't like it either, and prefer the > __attribute__(((((((gcc_fields)))))) as well.
Could someone with a Windows environment test if that (or (packed,
gcc_fields)?) makes
struct {
unsigned char a;
unsigned int b;
};
truly packed again?
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
