[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110207192830.GA23476@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:28:30 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "schwab@...ux-m68k.org" <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>,
"geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org" <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Early crash
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:27:08AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.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.
I see. OK, then I'll prepare a patch to switch over to struct + pointer
scheme.
Thanks,
Dmitry
--
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