[rmk@arm.uk.linux.org: Re: Struct alignment on netwinder]
This might be a Good Time for someone with an up to date list of what
we have done to chime in:-> As well as a list of what we need help
with.
I wish I had my (&*^(*^^&*^& box:-((
----- Forwarded message from Russell King <rmk@arm.uk.linux.org> -----
From: Russell King <rmk@arm.uk.linux.org>
Message-Id: <199809022003.VAA00459@raistlin.armlinux.org>
Subject: Re: Struct alignment on netwinder
To: devel@netwinder.org
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 21:03:54 +0100 (BST)
Cc: linux-arm@vger.rutgers.edu
Andrew E. Mileski writes:
> > As you've observed, code that relies on this is just plain wrong and needs to
> > be fixed. You may be able to work around it by adding
> > __attribute__ (( __packed__ )) to the structure definitions.
>
> As Philip said, the code is just plain wrong :P
>
> I had to hack RPM because it does I/O with structs.
> I didn't bother using the packed attribute, as that
> isn't portable either.
>
> The solution is to always read and write unsigned
> chars, and then if you are really thorough, don't
> assume bit order either.
I was talking to Eric Troan (RedHat bod), and he will not accept
any patches for lib/cpio.c - his opinion is that because everything
else works, we ought to fall in line.
He will not accept patches to rpm to change this because he wants the
code to be readable, not functional. Sounds like he's too concerned
about 'the readability of code' rather than the functionality of it.
If you ask me, I think this is totally the wrong attitude.
He also mentioned that he is not considering even attempting to do
an ARM distribution because of the lack of market for such a port.
I'm afraid that my opinions are changing, favouring maybe some other
distribution like Debian now.
| | Russell King rmk@arm.uk.linux.org --- ---
----- End forwarded message -----
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
Reply to: