Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:01:24 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: Possible ARM struct stat problem.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:52:02PM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote:
> On Monday, June 25, 2012 10:50:02 PM Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:15:25AM +0200, John Spencer wrote:
> > > >I'm not entirely opposed to putting the explicit padding in there,
> > > >since this is an arch-specific structure anyway, but I think you
> > > >should check your compiler. The same issue might come up elsewhere and
> > > >might not be so easy to work around.
> > > 
> > > please apply the explicit padding.
> > 
> > All this would have done is hide the issue that you're using the wrong
> > ABI (oabi instead of eabi) and make it harder to find the more-subtle
> > resulting bugs later (mildly different calling convention and
> > padding).
> > 
> I agree with Rich on this one.

I'm wondering if there's somewhere in the source I could put a static
assertion to test for wrong ABI. Perhaps this belongs in the configure
script (but I know *ahem* some folks don't run configure).
Unfortunately the only C code that's arch-specific is in header files,
and none of them really seem like the appropriate place for static
assertions, so I'm not sure where to put it.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.