Hi Detlev,
>> diff --git a/lib/display_options.c b/lib/display_options.c
>> index 20319e6..9048a8a 100644
>> --- a/lib/display_options.c
>> +++ b/lib/display_options.c
>> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ void print_size(unsigned long long size, const char *s)
>> #define DEFAULT_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES (16)
>> int print_buffer (ulong addr, void* data, uint width, uint count, uint
>> linelen)
>> {
>> - uint8_t linebuf[MAX_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES + 1];
>> + uint32_t linebuf[MAX_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES/4 + 1];
>> uint32_t *uip = (void*)linebuf;
>> uint16_t *usp = (void*)linebuf;
>> uint8_t *ucp = (void*)linebuf;
>
> Sorry to jump in here late, but I do not like this change. How can a
> reader of the code who has not followed the discussion here infer that
> the datatype is there to ensure alignment?
>
> I am willing to bet at least a few beers that it will not take long
> until someone posts a patch changing the datatype back, because
> c-strings are bytes.
>
> I would much rather see an alignment attribute, which will _document_
> the problem _and_ fix it, instead of only fixing it.
One could add a comment above like:
/*
* it is mandatory that linebuf stays uint32_t aligned
* since we are going to slide along it with a uint32_t
* pointer
*/
uint32_t linebuf[MAX_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES/4 + 1];
I personally prefer this above an attribute. Its disputeable but I prefer
to do things with "normal C constructs" where possible. You can already
see from the discussion that __aligned as a toolchain-abstracted
variant (defined in a toolchain header file) or attribute((__aligned__))
as a very toolchain dependant variant shall be used ;)
Anyway, both patches have been offered, any will work for me as long as
I can see ASCII properly on ARM machines...
without patch:
22000000: 41424344 41424344 41424344 41424344 ADCBADCBADCBAV4.
with patch:
22000000: 41424344 41424344 41424344 41424344 DCBADCBADCBADCBA
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
