Hi Ilia!
On 07/17/2014 04:35 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Thanks! Munged the commit description a little and pushed to the
> master branch. I think the patches for 10.2.4 have already been
> selected, so it should make its way into 10.2.5.
Awesome, thank you so much! Glad we could finally this one :)
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
>> Yes, implicit padding is definitely bad. I didn't realize I even had
>> it in there, although I'm glad my STATIC_ASSERT did its job. There are
>
> ;-)
>
>> various references to patches, however
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Jan Vesely wrote:
> why not use __attribute__ ((aligned(X))) for explicit padding?
That’s ① GCC-specific and ② relies on environmental guarantees
that cannot always be given (e.g. you cannot align a struct
more than the stack alignment if it is ever passed on the
stack; for s
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Yes, implicit padding is definitely bad. I didn't realize I even had
> it in there, although I'm glad my STATIC_ASSERT did its job. There are
;-)
> various references to patches, however I haven't seen any. Perhaps
> they're lost in my inbox, or they wer
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 10:21 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Eero Tamminen wrote:
>
> > While effect of unaligned accesses is normally invisible,
>
> No, the compiler is inserting padding here silently.
> We call this “implicit padding”. The problem with it
> is that this padd
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Eero Tamminen wrote:
>
>> While effect of unaligned accesses is normally invisible,
>
> No, the compiler is inserting padding here silently.
> We call this “implicit padding”. The problem with it
[ strip excellent expl
6 matches
Mail list logo
