Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:09:42 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | remove __ALIGN from pnpbios/bioscalls.c? |
| |
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 01:04:32PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 00:51:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote: > >> > > - Which CPUs exactly need X86_ALIGNMENT_16? > >> > > >> >Unsure. This could use testing on a few systems. > >> > >> K7s and P5s (and 486s too if I remember correctly) strongly prefer > >> code entry points and loop labels to be 16-byte aligned. This is > >> due to the way code is fetched from L1. > >>... > > > >Hm, that's pretty different from the definition in -test5: > > > >config X86_ALIGNMENT_16 > > bool > > depends on MWINCHIP3D || MWINCHIP2 || MWINCHIPC6 || MCYRIXIII || > > MELAN || MK6 || M586MMX || M586TSC || M586 || M486 || MVIAC3_2 > > default y > > My comment referred to data from Intel and AMD code optimisation > guides. > > The kernel only uses X86_ALIGNMENT_16 to derive two __ALIGN macros > for assembly code, but it doesn't use them except in one place in > the pnpbios code.
It seems thoe only architecture really using the __ALIGN macros is m68k. This is irrelevant in this case since X86_ALIGNMENT_16 only affects i386.
> gcc -march=<cpu type> should generate appropriate alignment for > function entries and loop labels. > > I suspect X86_ALIGNMENT_16 is a left-over from old code. > Perhaps its time to retire it.
Thomas, what exactly do you need __ALIGN_STR in the function pnp_bios_callfunc in drivers/pnp/pnpbios/bioscalls.c for?
> /Mikael
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |