Il 02/04/2013 18:43, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 2 April 2013 15:44, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> This is no different from, for example, TARGET_LONG_BITS. It does >> not belong in configure. > >> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu.h b/target-ppc/cpu.h >> index 42c36e2..19d4e4c 100644 >> --- a/target-ppc/cpu.h >> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu.h >> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ >> #if defined (TARGET_PPC64) >> /* PowerPC 64 definitions */ >> #define TARGET_LONG_BITS 64 >> +#define TARGET_LONG_ALIGNMENT 8 >> #define TARGET_PAGE_BITS 12 > > Doesn't this incorrectly set the long alignment to 8 > for ppc64abi32? (Probably similar problem for > sparc32plus and mipsn32. The underlying point here is that > alignment is an ABI decision and you can have more than one > ABI for a particular TARGET_FOO.)
Hmm, seems like you're right _but_ I am not sure if the *current* code is correct. On real hardware, the CPUs are certainly not able to do unaligned 32-bit accesses, and target_long/target_ulong pointers look like they're never used for data that comes from target memory. Rather, they're used for by-reference passing into functions, and stuff like that. What these targets want to have 32-bit alignment is really abi_long/abi_ulong, and that's already okay. Alex, Blue, Aurelien, can you test the above three targets? Paolo
