On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:37:46PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > The reason I did this in the first place was a vague notion that
> > unconditional
> > packing was harmful.
> >
> > http://digitalvampire.org/blog/index.php/2006/07/31/why-you-shouldnt-use-__attribute__packed/
> >
> > "However, it's actively harmful to add the attribute to a structure that's
> > already going to be laid out with no padding."
> > ...
> > "gcc gets scared about unaligned accesses and generates six times as much
> > code
> > (96 bytes vs. 16 bytes)! sparc64 goes similarly crazy, bloating from 12
> > bytes
> > to 52 bytes"
> >
> > I don't know if that's (still) correct or not, but that was the reason
> > for the selective __pack application way back when. Might be worth
> > investigating?
>
> Christoph? The first two ptches are fine, but more info is needed
> for this one...
I don't have a sparc64 compiler to test unfortunately. But I can confirm
that on x86-64 xfs.o is bit to bit identical with or without the patch.
|