[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <06329f-e498-ccc-6223-32f87716436d@google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: RE: amusing SLUB compaction bug when CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022, David Laight wrote:
> > > > Regarding "conflicting" alignment requests: yes, I agree with you,
> > > > it would have to be a toolchain bug if when asked to align 2 and to
> > > > align 4, it chose not to align 4.
>
> See https://godbolt.org/z/3nGsTaf5e
> the align() directive takes precedence.
>
> Here you only want to ensure the alignment is at least 4.
Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making,
nor how to deduce it from the link which you give:
I'll leave it to those who understand better.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists