Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:56:44 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: kuehl@lgk.de Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: x86 unaligned access followup. Message-ID: <3B5692BC.77E9D994@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.010718202521.kuehl@lgk.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
kuehl@lgk.de wrote: > > A "shakedown cruise" could end up being very rough... you > > would effectively need to check an "unaligned access in > > kernel is OK" flag in many of these instances, and fall back > > to doing the copy when it was false. > > ...therefore - never mind. > Perhaps some app code may break. ;-) The point was that this code breaks on some architectures supported by FreeBSD anyway, and moving at least some of the pain onto x86 people would end up minimizing that breakage. Right now, being able to make a bug break all architectures equally looks pretty good to people having to keep up with the x86 port of FreeBSD's rate of breakage of others, like the Alpha, when people with just x86 hardware break things without knowing it. Most of the App code is fixed, since most of it runs on the Alpha without a lot of problems, these days. Your biggest problem is bound to be the non-native ABI's, such as what people call "the Linux emulator", since x86 programmers on Linux aren't nearly as careful with their code. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B5692BC.77E9D994>