Re: sizeof problem in kernel modules

From: Michael Meissner (
Date: Sun Jun 24 2001 - 19:26:54 EST

On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Previous to the "Draft" "Proposal" of C98, there were no such
> requirements. And so-called ANSI -C specifically declined to
> define any order within structures.

As one of the founding members of the X3J11 ANSI committee, and having served
on the committee for 10 1/2 years, I can state categorically that Appendix A of
the original K&R (which was one of the 3 base documents for ANSI C) had the
requirement that non-bitfield fields are required to have monotonically
increasing addresses (bitfields don't have addresses, and different compiler
ABIs do lay them out in different fashions within the words). C89 never
changed the wording that mandates this.

Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.  (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work:	fax:   +1 978-692-4482
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:10 EST