Xen 
 
Home About Xen.org Xen Xen Summit Wiki Mailing List Bug Tracker Xen Downloads
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size.

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size.
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:19:14 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@xxxxxxxx>, Jimi Xenidis <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:21:31 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <b44b561aa3958105c8613c6364b6a6da@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-id: List for Xen developers <xen-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <16964.33214.921809.324278@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <74f362598b4e1a0d46aacb1a514706ac@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <16964.41853.43756.836319@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503261029270.23670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <16965.40068.388024.929154@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <21eeeb49a66395420f0c47c7d5327630@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <2330d67d198017769ff97ec4a548dcf2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503262030500.24687@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <b44b561aa3958105c8613c6364b6a6da@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 27 Mar 2005, at 11:56, Keir Fraser wrote:

I don't think there are that many gcc-isms, apart from use of PACKED (please correct me if I'm wrong). You can always define that to nothing if you need to - I'd hope that no compiler adds padding since all fields should be naturally aligned. I don't see us moving to a model where we define macros on char arrays anytime soon. :-) But perhaps we could include a script to generate such macros from our structure definitions....

Actually this would get round the need to manually determine field offsets -- we could get rid of PACKED, let fields fall as they may, and then run the headers through gcc to get field offsets for those who need them. There are a very few cases where we actually really care about two fields being directly adjacent, but I could add annotations in the header files and run a script to check that the placement constraints are satisfied.

Already the field offset comments are broken in a few places in unstable, so perhaps this is a better way to go.

 -- Keir



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>