On 9/27/18 7:16 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 9/27/18 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Taking the address of a field in a packed struct is a bad idea, because
>> it might not be actually aligned enough for that pointer type (and
>> thus cause a crash on dereference on some host architectures). Newer
On 27 September 2018 at 19:16, Eric Blake wrote:
> Okay, I am also in favor of the complete conversion. Want me to squash in
> the remaining 3 spots as part of queuing my patch, so you don't have to send
> a v2?
Yes, please.
thanks
-- PMM
On 9/27/18 1:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
I'm a bit confused. After applying your patch (and rebasing it to my pending
pull request), I still found instances of be16_to_cpus() and others. Were
you only flipping instances that were members of a packed struct, while
leaving other instances unchang
On 27 September 2018 at 18:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 9/27/18 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> Taking the address of a field in a packed struct is a bad idea, because
>> it might not be actually aligned enough for that pointer type (and
>> thus cause a crash on dereference on some host archite
On 9/27/18 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Taking the address of a field in a packed struct is a bad idea, because
it might not be actually aligned enough for that pointer type (and
thus cause a crash on dereference on some host architectures). Newer
versions of clang warn about this. Avoid the bu
On 9/27/18 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
Taking the address of a field in a packed struct is a bad idea, because
it might not be actually aligned enough for that pointer type (and
thus cause a crash on dereference on some host architectures). Newer
versions of clang warn about this. Avoid the bu
Taking the address of a field in a packed struct is a bad idea, because
it might not be actually aligned enough for that pointer type (and
thus cause a crash on dereference on some host architectures). Newer
versions of clang warn about this. Avoid the bug by not using the
"modify in place" byte sw
