[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110527085414.GP24876@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 09:54:14 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, sam@...nborg.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Do not allow unaligned accesses when
CONFIG_ALIGNMENT_TRAP
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:38:08AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> OK, I tried this now:
>
> -fconserve-stack: we get unaligned accesses on the stack because the
> newer versions of gcc turned unaligned accesses on by default.
>
> -fconserve-stack -mno-unaligned-access: the stack variables are aligned.
> We probably get the benefit of -fconserve-stack as well.
>
> So as per the initial post in this thread, we could have
> -mno-unaligned-access on ARM always on (when CONFIG_ALIGNMENT_TRAP). As
> Nicolas suggested, we could compile some files with -munaligned-access
> (and maybe -fno-conserve-stack).
>
> I raised this with the gcc guys so they are looking into it. But it
> really doesn't look like a gcc bug as long as -mno-unaligned-access is
> taken into account.
Ok, we need to check one last thing, and that's what the behaviour is
with -mno-unaligned-access and packed structures (such as the ethernet
header). If it makes no difference, then I suggest we always build
with -mno-unaligned-access.
--
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