Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:01:24 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com 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. Rich
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.