Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:48:06 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable |
| |
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > I forgot to comment on that one, sorry. > > If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the > bits field size into account, or did I miss something?
So, if you do the following,
struct { struct { int i; long ar[]; } B; long __ar_storage[32]; } A;
It should always be safe to dereference A.B.ar[31]. I'm not sure whether this is something guaranteed by C tho. Maybe compilers are allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend on the above.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |