Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size.

[Ronald G. M. <rmi...@la...>]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Keir Fraser wrote:

> 
> On 27 Mar 2005, at 04:34, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
> 
> > My issues with the Plan 9 port have all revolved around portability from
> > x86 to x86, due to the gcc-isms in the headers.
> 
> I don't think there are that many gcc-isms, apart from use of PACKED (please
> correct me if I'm wrong). 

that's the biggie. And I don't see the need in many cases. 

> You can always define that to nothing if you need to
> - I'd hope that no compiler adds padding since all fields should be naturally
> aligned. 

They are not in all cases. 

I will try to find a simple example later today. 

thanks

ron