On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 13:32, Dr. David Alan Gilbert
wrote:
> Is the problem here that the field could actually be misaligned (on
> any conceivable build) or is it just a matter of convincing clang it's
> safe?
This is mostly a "clang doesn't know that the struct field
will actually always be 4 a
* Cornelia Huck (coh...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:27:56 +
> Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 09:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > >
> > > struct SubchDev embeds several other structures which are marked with
> > > QEMU_PACKED. This causes the compiler to not care
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:27:56 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 09:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >
> > struct SubchDev embeds several other structures which are marked with
> > QEMU_PACKED. This causes the compiler to not care for proper alignment
> > of these structures. When we lat
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 09:25, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> struct SubchDev embeds several other structures which are marked with
> QEMU_PACKED. This causes the compiler to not care for proper alignment
> of these structures. When we later pass around pointers to the unaligned
> struct members during mig
On 27/09/2018 10:23, Thomas Huth wrote:
> struct SubchDev embeds several other structures which are marked with
> QEMU_PACKED. This causes the compiler to not care for proper alignment
> of these structures. When we later pass around pointers to the unaligned
> struct members during migration, this
struct SubchDev embeds several other structures which are marked with
QEMU_PACKED. This causes the compiler to not care for proper alignment
of these structures. When we later pass around pointers to the unaligned
struct members during migration, this causes problems on host architectures
like Spar
