Use consistent __attribute__((__packed__)) #339
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
GilesBathgate
force-pushed
the
consistent-attribute-packed
branch
from
7fcb669 to
f05e944
Compare
GilesBathgate
changed the title
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #339 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.14% 91.14%
=======================================
Files 166 166
Lines 7692 7692
=======================================
Hits 7011 7011
Misses 681 681
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
The ones using the second form look to have been imported third party code, hence the inconsistency :) |
vintagepc
approved these changes
Nov 26, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Code consistency. In some places
__attribute__((__packed__))was used in others__attribute__((packed)). I can't find any documentation that supports the later version but it could possibly be old syntax that still works in gcc.Behaviour/ Breaking changes
No behavioural changes are expected.