On 29/8/06 1:46 pm, "Jan Beulich" <jbeu...@novell.com> wrote:
/* Structural guest handles introduced in 0x00030201. */
#if (defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__)) && !defined(__ASSEMBLY__)
-typedef uint64_t __attribute__((aligned(8))) uint64_aligned_t;
+#define uint64_aligned_t uint64_t __attribute__((__aligned__(8)))
This is GCC-specific, in a public header. At the very least it needs to
be conditional on gcc being used (#define __xen_aligned or whatever)...
That is a comment regarding the original change, then. I still agree this
should be abstracted out in some way - the question is how, since I
guess users of other compilers would need to provide input.
I'll admit there's still the question of whether this is worthwhile for just
these two hypercalls in the first place. Jan: do you think much code will be
saved by explicit alignment for domctl/sysctl, or do you think we're just as
well to remove uint64_aligned_t and XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64, and do compat shims
for domctl/sysctl just as we are for all other hypercalls?
-- Keir
13 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-develRe: [Xen-devel] uint64_aligned_t not ...