Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>>struct a1 { int a; char b; short c[];};
>>struct a2 { int a; char b; short c[1];};
>>
>> sizeof(struct a{1,2}) is 8.
>> offsetof(struct a{1,2}, c) is 6.
>>
>>--> sizeof(struct a1) != offsetof(struct a2, c)
>>
>>
>
>Oh dear. I checked my C9x draft copy and you seem to be right.
>The standard states that sizeof(struct a1) == offsetof(struct a1, c),
>but both gcc (2.95.3 and 3.2) and Intel's icc (7.0) get it wrong on x86:
>they make sizeof(struct a1) == 8 but offsetof(struct a1, c) == 6.
>
>
I've filed a gcc bug, no 9058: As the reply, I got a mail from Joseph
Myers with links to TC to the C99 standard:
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n983.htm
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n987.htm
>
>
>>I agree. Should we fix the kmalloc allocations, too?
>>
>>- pp = kmalloc(sizeof(struct poll_list)+
>>+ pp = kmalloc(offsetof(struct poll_list,entries)+
>> sizeof(struct pollfd)*
>> (i>POLLFD_PER_PAGE?POLLFD_PER_PAGE:i),
>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>>
>
>Yes, this should be changed as you suggest. The old code only
>works in C99-compliant implementations, but we now know that both
>gcc and icc get this wrong, so it seems prudent to revert to
>the classical formulation, using the 'entries[0]' declaration
>syntax and offsetof() instead of sizeof().
>
>
I found an even simpler formula:
offsetof(struct poll_list,entries[i>POLLFD_PER_PAGE?POLLFD_PER_PAGE:i];
I'll ask the gcc guys if that formula is a portable solution.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 22:00:09 EST