Hi Måns, On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:44:46 +0000, Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> wrote:
> Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> writes: > > > Hi Måns, > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:33:09 +0000, Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> > > wrote: > > > >> The problem is that the current settings do > >> the exact opposite. By using -munaligned-access by default, you are > >> asking the compiler to go ahead and do whatever it thinks is best, which > >> is sometimes to perform an intentional unaligned access. Exactly when > >> this will happen is largely impossible to predict. > > > > The -munaligned-access option does *not* "[ask] the compiler to go > > ahead and do whatever it thinks is best", it tells it to use direct > > native accesses when unaligned accesses are required, as opposed to > > splitting unaligned accesses into smaller but aligned aligned native > > accesses, which is what you get with -mno-unaligned-access. > > The flag does both of those things. It even gives the compiler > permission to merge multiple adjacent accesses into a single wider one. Both of which two things exactly? Besides, the only place where we saw it merge adjacent accesses into a wider one is in some cases of array initialization which are documented in doc/README.arm-unaligned-accesses. > >> To get the behaviour you desire, the code should be compiled with > >> -mno-unaligned-access. This tells the compiler to _never_ automatically > >> perform an unaligned memory access. If it thinks an address might be > >> unaligned, it will split the access. > > > > This shows that you really have not read my argument, in which I *did* > > explain why we tell the compiler *not* to split unaligned accesses into > > smaller correctly aligned accesses, i.e., why -munaligned-access is > > used. > > I have read what you call your argument. Unfortunately for you, it is > based on false premises, and as such any conclusions you arrive at are > incorrect. (you have asked someone else not to be condescending. I, in turn, ask you to stop being insulting.) If you have read my argument, then I assume you have understood that the point of it is to detect uncontrolled unaligned accesses; however, your rebuttal apparently misses this point, as it proposes to *prevent* detection of such unaligned accesses. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot