Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:51:54 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Architectures with strict alignment? Message-ID: <fl6q3b$tro$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4776d1d7.zI7kRv9uFoaBNKnQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <fl4c8o$vpu$1@ger.gmane.org> <20071229.122221.-432830441.imp@bsdimp.com> <4776d1d7.zI7kRv9uFoaBNKnQ%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig80BE01B2E3758187A5AE944C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > The degree to which a PowerPC imposes a strict alignment requirement > depends on both the particular processor model and the operation > being performed. >=20 > For ordinary integer arithmetic and logical operations, newer > PPC processors tend to be more tolerant (although misalignment > will typically carry a performance penalty). For the semaphore > primitives (lwarx/stwcx.) most PPC will require proper alignment > and some will fault if the operand address is cache-inhibited > (even though correctly aligned). How would it behave in operations like x =3D x + 1 where x is unaligned in memory? A RISC would have to load the value from memory, increment it and store it. I'm not particularly interested in slowdowns, just hard faults. --------------enig80BE01B2E3758187A5AE944C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHduuqldnAQVacBcgRAo1aAJ9JcQ32lVk0QfJL7kmPWXQjFO0/5QCaA+Z4 1h8NbZU3wcv8rs36rE3lhp8= =Cq8a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig80BE01B2E3758187A5AE944C--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fl6q3b$tro$1>