From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in module versions Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:19:57 -0800 Message-ID: <20110217221957.GA11244@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> References: <20110217.131702.112601300.davem@davemloft.net> <20110217.140119.39175251.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110217.140119.39175251.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Cc: "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "geert@linux-m68k.org" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:01:19PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Linus Torvalds > Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:54:57 -0800 > > > Is there a -fdata-align or something? Or would __attribute__((packed)) > > help? Something that explicitly tells gcc "don't do this", instead of > > "let's add indirection and hope gcc doesn't add alignment for _that_". > > Especially as the extra pointer makes the code even uglier. > > The tracing folks went down the path of trying to use packed in > various ways, to no avail, because no matter what they tried it broke > other things. > > > And if we do have to use the pointer thing, let's at least then do the > > pointer with asms, so that gcc _really_ can't screw it up. Rather than > > just move the potential bug around. > > That's fine with me. Any pointers as to how to emit these pointers with asm? -- Dmitry