[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A0211AFF0@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:25:58 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: <trenn@...e.de>, "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>, "Jan Dittmer" <jdi@....org>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: scripts/mod/file2alias.c cross compile problem
> Adrian Bunk: scripts/mod/file2alias.c is compiled with HOSTCC and ensures that
> kernel_ulong_t is correct, but it can't cope with different padding on
> different architectures.
Surely this is the root cause ... you can't expect that the alignment
rules of HOSTCC to make any sense for an arbitraty target.
> +#define FILLUP_LEN 7 /* dirty fix for i386 -> 64bit cross-compilation */
>
> struct acpi_device_id {
> __u8 id[ACPI_ID_LEN];
> + __u8 dummy[FILLUP_LEN];
> kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
> };
What's so special about this structure that we get an error? Surely
there are many kernel structures with different alignment/padding
when built with i386 complier compared with ia64 compiler. We can't
go around manually padding them all (it wastes time, and also wastes
memory on the 32-bit systems that don't need this padding).
-Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists