Re: [patch] i386: make bitops safe

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:04:01AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > One could reasonably argue that if you used a structure with a
> > flexible array member, that GCC could not look through that.  But
> > again I'm not 100% positive this is handled properly.
> 
> This seems to work but causes more problems than it solves:
> 
> #define vaddr ((volatile long *) addr)

This isn't a structure witha flexible array member.


r~
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Re: [patch] i386: make bitops safe
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] synclink_gt: make ->init_error signed
• Next by Date: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD?
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] i386: make bitops safe
• Next by thread: [PATCH] e1000: Support e1000 OEMed onto Aculab cards
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]