On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > Arnd, > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:15:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> Assuming that we can prevent any funny stuff from going into such an ABI, >> we only need to worry about the warts of the current ABI for ARM specific >> considerations. The one thing that I've noticed before is that structs >> on ARM (at least on one of the ABIs, forgot which) are padded to 32 bits, >> even if all members inside are smaller. > > This is only the case for the old ABI. EABI lays out structures so that they > are aligned to their most aligned member and padded to be the smallest > possible multiple of that alignment which can contain all of their aligned > members.
Hmm, so then since you can build the kernel w/ OABI compatibility, it seems like structs should always have padding fields to force them to be a multiple of 32bits... BR, -R > It's described more formally in the PCS document: > > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0042d/IHI0042D_aapcs.pdf > > Will > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-dev mailing list > linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
