[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BFC8617.9010501@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 10:23:19 +0800
From: Jie Zhang <jie@...esourcery.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
CC: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, uclinux-dev@...inux.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
David McCullough <davidm@...pgear.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FLAT: allow arches to declare a larger alignment than
the slab
On 05/26/2010 07:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i do not believe that is the reason for this, but unfortunately Jie is
> about the only one atm who knows the inner details as for why shared
> FLAT libraries requires 0x20 rather than just 0x4 alignment. i do
> know that there are some gcc fortran tests that fail otherwise.
> hopefully he can remember details ;).
>
I encountered this issue when investigating some GCC test failures when
using FLAT. I don't remember if they were in GCC Fortran testsuite. Some
variables in those test cases were required to be aligned at a large
boundary, for example 16-byte. I found 0x20 was a reasonably large
alignment to fix all such failures in GCC testsuite.
Jie
--
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