Subject: Re: ncr53c9x changes proposed
To: Gordon W. Ross <>
From: Scott Reynolds <scottr@Plexus.COM>
List: tech-kern
Date: 04/01/1997 16:29:21
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Gordon W. Ross wrote:

> > From: Paul Kranenburg <>
> > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 23:42:22 +0200 (MET DST)
> > Why do you need the `pad[3]' ?
> There is no "need" for the padding, strictly speaking.
> However, they represent a "micro-optimization" for m68k
> machines. [...]
> [snip]
> I hope nobody minds an occasional "char pad[]" much.
> They also make memory dumps in ddb easier to read...

Well, I don't particularly like them, but I don't have a better
suggestion, either.  The only thing that I can imagine at the moment is
that we teach gcc to align on longword boundaries by default... which, at
first glance, doesn't appear tremendously difficult.