Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:27:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20110207.112708.193718501.davem@davemloft.net>
To: dtor@vmware.com
Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Early crash
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110207165829.GA13101@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
References: <20110207081933.GA11855@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
	<20110207.005010.28814928.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20110207165829.GA13101@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 708
Lines: 17

From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:58:29 -0800

> But, theoretically speaking, nothing stops GCC to align pointers with
> "gaps" as well? Let's say having everything (or some) aligned on
> quadword boundary even though arch is 32 bit?

The alignment business only applies to aggregates (ie. structs and
unions).

This has been confirmed via several weeks of expermentation with
different GCC versions on different platforms as well.
--
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/