Re: weird padding in linux/timex.h, struct timex

[Muli Ben-Yehuda]

--mzmkN2k+aDjaU9Rr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:36:04PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 12:15, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > Hi,=20
> >=20
> > struct timex in include/linux/timex.h is defined as=20
> >=20
> > struct timex=20
> > {
> > 	...
> > 	int  :32; int  :32; int  :32; int  :32;
> > 	int  :32; int  :32; int  :32; int  :32;
> > 	int  :32; int  :32; int  :32; int  :32;
> > };=20
> >=20
> > I assume that this is used as padding. Is there any reason for using
> > bitfields as padding? If there is, a comment to that effect would be
> > nice. If there isn't, the following patch makes the padding explicit.=
=20
> >=20
>=20
> That is how the interface has always been defined. I think we inherited
> that from the world of xntpd but I may be wrong. Your __pad is not
> always the same thing - you assume 4 byte ints and ints aligned the same
> way as char [], which may not always be true.

I assume 4 byte ints, because I assume that the length of a 32 bit
bitfield will be 32 bits. As for alignment, you're correct.=20

I guess my question becomes: is the original code defined in any
special way, in regards to padding and size? If it isn't, my __pad
patch would be cleaner and just as correct in principle. If it is, I
can make a __pad which will behave exactly the same way.=20

Thanks, Muli.=20
--=20
I am PINK, hear me ROAR

http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~mulix/
http://syscalltrack.sf.net/

--mzmkN2k+aDjaU9Rr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9T8aIKRs727/VN8sRAiyVAJ9eQ94VqvV/SSRlOYRHMMtascNyxwCeLjpn
DQSSKlU0r9rox0tHlaCjoQM=
=Sisj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mzmkN2k+aDjaU9Rr--