Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:29:00 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kdump on ARM Message-ID: <20100217152900.GX43625@cicely7.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20100217151941.GV43625@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <4B7BFAA4.4040607@semihalf.com> <FF73974A-6960-4F75-82E9-1DBAACCB8E0F@gmail.com> <20100217151607.GU43625@cicely7.cicely.de> <20100217151941.GV43625@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:19:41PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:16:07PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:54:05PM +0000, Rui Paulo wrote: > > > On 17 Feb 2010, at 14:18, Grzegorz Bernacki wrote: > > > I wonder if this can't be made non arm conditional? > > Ups - I'd just recovered from Mr. Sandman's work. > So we all agree about. > Nevertheless it should be verified if this is just a faulty struct > definition. > On the other hand I think it is not because someone else wrote it is > a brokem on mips as well. I'm really still sleeping - noone mentioned mips at all. > > Either this struct is properly aligned or not. > > So why should this be made conditional? > > Non strict alignment architecturs also have problems with this, but > > it is usualy just speed penalties. > > There is one ARM sepcific struct missalignment problem. > > In this case we usually add __packed macro to structure definition. > > For most structures this usually means no change on other > > archtitectures and we only declare the struct to forcibly be what the > > programmer already expected. > > Only a few programmers are aware that they expect something from > > structures, which is not garantied. -- B.Walter <bernd@bwct.de> http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100217152900.GX43625>