From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Early crash Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:27:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20110207.112708.193718501.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20110207081933.GA11855@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> <20110207.005010.28814928.davem@davemloft.net> <20110207165829.GA13101@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110207165829.GA13101@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org To: dtor@vmware.com Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org From: Dmitry Torokhov Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:58:29 -0800 > But, theoretically speaking, nothing stops GCC to align pointers with > "gaps" as well? Let's say having everything (or some) aligned on > quadword boundary even though arch is 32 bit? The alignment business only applies to aggregates (ie. structs and unions). This has been confirmed via several weeks of expermentation with different GCC versions on different platforms as well. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:60478 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753936Ab1BGT0c (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:26:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:27:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20110207.112708.193718501.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: Early crash From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20110207165829.GA13101@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> References: <20110207081933.GA11855@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> <20110207.005010.28814928.davem@davemloft.net> <20110207165829.GA13101@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: dtor@vmware.com Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20110207192708.XveZpDpTzY1UMJxJpOn26TgtJyzZWaUhJqm5p1bqlQE@z> From: Dmitry Torokhov Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:58:29 -0800 > But, theoretically speaking, nothing stops GCC to align pointers with > "gaps" as well? Let's say having everything (or some) aligned on > quadword boundary even though arch is 32 bit? The alignment business only applies to aggregates (ie. structs and unions). This has been confirmed via several weeks of expermentation with different GCC versions on different platforms as well.