* ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com [150717 21:45]:
riscv is taking alignment traps reading cbfs.
The issue is that 64-bit fields are 32-bit aligned, which fails many places.
Thaminda found this comment:
* Since coreboot is usually compiled 32bit, gcc will align 64bit
types to 32bit
-mno-unaligned-access is ARM32 only, unfortunately. You'd have to
convince GCC developers to generalize it.
This statement is true for coreboot tables. CBFS files are aligned to 64
bytes by default.
The problem is that the CBFS stage and payload headers themselves
contain inherently
yes, they all *seem* like the ought to end up aligned, but they don't :-(
RISCV changed; they can do unaligned loads now.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:26 PM Julius Werner jwer...@chromium.org wrote:
-mno-unaligned-access is ARM32 only, unfortunately. You'd have to
convince GCC developers to
riscv is taking alignment traps reading cbfs.
The issue is that 64-bit fields are 32-bit aligned, which fails many places.
Thaminda found this comment:
* Since coreboot is usually compiled 32bit, gcc will align 64bit
* types to 32bit boundaries. If the coreboot table is dumped on a
* 64bit
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
bummer. We're going to have to add marshalling code to cbfs, to copy
Ya. You'd need to fix cbfs as well is my guess.
pointers from the architecture we're on to the architecture we're on, which
was compiled by gcc for the
bummer. We're going to have to add marshalling code to cbfs, to copy
pointers from the architecture we're on to the architecture we're on, which
was compiled by gcc for the architecture we're on, compiled on the
architecture we're not on, to conform to rules for an architecture we're
not on.
we're going to support unaligned accesses, they make it easy. I think it's
silly that have data structs that are not 64-bit aligned, however :-)
ron
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM Julius Werner jwer...@chromium.org wrote:
Is there no way to make RISCV support unaligned accesses? There's a
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:45 PM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
riscv is taking alignment traps reading cbfs.
The issue is that 64-bit fields are 32-bit aligned, which fails many places.
Thaminda found this comment:
* Since coreboot is usually compiled 32bit, gcc will align 64bit
On Friday, July 17, 2015 03:32:43 PM Aaron Durbin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:27 PM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
bummer. We're going to have to add marshalling code to cbfs, to copy
Ya. You'd need to fix cbfs as well is my guess.
Not really. It's OK to be extra careful when
Is there no way to make RISCV support unaligned accesses? There's a
bunch of things in coreboot (and especially libpayload) that depend on
it. I think that it generally makes code look much simpler (and run
faster) if you can assume that it's supported across the board.
If we do need to make CBFS
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:13 PM, ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
we're going to support unaligned accesses, they make it easy. I think it's
silly that have data structs that are not 64-bit aligned, however :-)
Of course. Unfortunately they're usually embedded in age-old
specifications
11 matches
Mail list logo
