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:0.095 / U:1.096 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site