Re: [Linux-ia64] [patch] 2.4.20-021210 misaligned sal error record

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2003-02-25 12:42:48
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:24:35 +1100, Keith Owens <kaos@sgi.com> said:

  Keith> -    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    cache_check_info[16];
  Keith> -    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    tlb_check_info[16];
  Keith> -    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    bus_check_info[16];
  Keith> -    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    reg_file_check_info[16];
  Keith> -    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    ms_check_info[16];
  Keith> +    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    cache_check_info[0];
  Keith> +    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    tlb_check_info[0];
  Keith> +    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    bus_check_info[0];
  Keith> +    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    reg_file_check_info[0];
  Keith> +    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    ms_check_info[0];

Somehow I doubt a declaration of this form is a good idea.  If the
records are all variable length, wouldn't it be saner to just declare
this with something along the lines of:

  Keith> +    sal_log_mod_error_info_t    check_info[0];

and then provide separate macros to access the indiviual portions?

	--david
Received on Mon Feb 24 17:44:31 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:12 EST