lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: FRV/ARM unaligned access question
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 10:10 +0100, Russell King wrote:
    > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:36:19AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
    > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 08:35 +0100, Russell King wrote:
    > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:13AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
    > > > > I noticed that frv/arm are the only two arches that currently use open-coded
    > > > > byteshifting routines for both the cpu endianness and the other endianness
    > > > > whereas just about all the other arches use a packed-struct version for the
    > > > > cpu-endian and then the byteshifting versions (lifted from arm) for the other
    > > > > endianness.
    > > >
    > > > I'm sorry, I think you're mistaken. I've looked at x86, m68k and
    > > > parisc, and they all use assembly for their swab functions in
    > > > asm/byteorder.h.
    > > >
    > >
    > > Sorry, not talking about byteorder at the moment, talking about
    > > unaligned.h.
    >
    > At the moment, I've no idea what effect it'll have. I'd need to run
    > some tests to discover what the effect will be. Not sure when I'll
    > get around to that.
    >
    > If someone else can be found to evaluate what the effect would be...
    >

    I don't have hardware to test with, but I'll do some cross-compiles to
    investigate a bit. I was just curious if there was any known issues on
    arm, or a specific arm compiler that made you choose the implementation
    you did.

    Cheers,

    Harvey



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-08 11:37    [W:0.046 / U:0.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site