Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:17:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20110217.131702.112601300.davem@davemloft.net>
To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: dtor@vmware.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org,
        rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in
 module versions
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinA-OP69fqf5jLfedk=dL2vmwdUyzn5E6FHR=Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=bgmRwGXEE_wriYo-5gmyaB43pMUzHf7idiK0k@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110217.130115.71101941.davem@davemloft.net>
	<AANLkTinA-OP69fqf5jLfedk=dL2vmwdUyzn5E6FHR=Zw@mail.gmail.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: 970
Lines: 23

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:11:56 -0800

> EVERY SINGLE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS WORK FOR "pointer" TOO!

It at least will not happen at the current time, because GCC only
plays these games on aggregates.

Also, for exception tables, we've avoided this problem because
we emit the exception tables by hand using inline asm and therefore
explicitly control all aspects of the alignment and size.

The GCC manual even documents the alignment attribute behavior.

Also, please don't shoot the messenger, I didn't make GCC behave this
way but I doubt you'll have any luck undoing this behavior in the
tools which therefore means as pragmatists we have to handle it one
way or another.
--
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/