Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755787AbXFPLVr (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:21:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753610AbXFPLVl (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:21:41 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:60212 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752547AbXFPLVk (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:21:40 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce compat_u64 and compat_s64 types Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:21:35 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Airlie , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <200706150159.l5F1xNgM000459@hera.kernel.org> <1181986686.25228.639.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200706161226.40875.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <200706161226.40875.arnd@arndb.de> X-Face: >j"dOR3XO=^3iw?0`(E1wZ/&le9!.ok[JrI=S~VlsF~}"P\+jx.GT@=?utf-8?q?=0A=09-oaEG?=,9Ba>v;3>:kcw#yO5?B:l{(Ln.2)=?utf-8?q?=27=7Dfw07+4-=26=5E=7CScOpE=3F=5D=5EXdv=5B/zWkA7=60=25M!DxZ=0A=09?= =?utf-8?q?8MJ=2EU5?="hi+2yT(k`PF~Zt;tfT,i,JXf=x@eLP{7B:"GyA\=UnN) =?utf-8?q?=26=26qdaA=3A=7D-Y*=7D=3A3YvzV9=0A=09=7E=273a=7E7I=7CWQ=5D?=<50*%U-6Ewmxfzdn/CK_E/ouMU(r?FAQG/ev^JyuX.%(By`" =?utf-8?q?L=5F=0A=09H=3Dbj?=)"y7*XOqz|SS"mrZ$`Q_syCd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706161321.35940.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+Wdvjn8AoKzGf4QqynAzfUMH/SQQim4uRl9T5 s1soWjeS+qJ6ErnIawkB7qS9kb8z1Qz/s0IXAm1qgUdlNJPRXZ XNGdA5/5wOQuDsKz+xnnQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 958 Lines: 22 On Saturday 16 June 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 16 June 2007, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Will GCC know that it needs to emit code to handle that (mis)alignment? > > I've tested this with gcc-4.0.3, and it does the right thing, which > is to split a 4 byte aligned 64 bit load/store into two 32 bit accesses, > if you pass -mstrict-align. I just realized this was correct but slightly misleading. On powerpc, we don't set the 'attribute((aligned(4)))' on compat_64, so there is never a reason to handle the misalignment, even though it would work. On x86_64, misaligned loads are always ok, so gcc never needs to care about this, even attribute((packed)) does not cause byte access here. Arnd <>< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/