From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:27:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:27:38 -0400 Received: from munchkin.spectacle-pond.org ([209.192.197.45]:22547 "EHLO munchkin.spectacle-pond.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:27:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:26:54 -0400 From: Michael Meissner To: "Richard B. Johnson" Cc: Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: sizeof problem in kernel modules Message-ID: <20010624202654.B30355@munchkin.spectacle-pond.org> In-Reply-To: <19093.993348744@ocs3.ocs-net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from root@chaos.analogic.com on Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:43:14PM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: meissner@redhat.com phone: +1 978-486-9304 Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org fax: +1 978-692-4482