Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: FRV/ARM unaligned access question | From | Harvey Harrison <> | Date | Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:34:07 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 10:10 +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:36:19AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 08:35 +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:13AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > > I noticed that frv/arm are the only two arches that currently use open-coded > > > > byteshifting routines for both the cpu endianness and the other endianness > > > > whereas just about all the other arches use a packed-struct version for the > > > > cpu-endian and then the byteshifting versions (lifted from arm) for the other > > > > endianness. > > > > > > I'm sorry, I think you're mistaken. I've looked at x86, m68k and > > > parisc, and they all use assembly for their swab functions in > > > asm/byteorder.h. > > > > > > > Sorry, not talking about byteorder at the moment, talking about > > unaligned.h. > > At the moment, I've no idea what effect it'll have. I'd need to run > some tests to discover what the effect will be. Not sure when I'll > get around to that. > > If someone else can be found to evaluate what the effect would be... >
I don't have hardware to test with, but I'll do some cross-compiles to investigate a bit. I was just curious if there was any known issues on arm, or a specific arm compiler that made you choose the implementation you did.
Cheers,
Harvey
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |