Linux MIPS Architecture development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Alignment of FP Context Storage
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:24:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <015201c28f05$cb583800$10eca8c0@grendel> (raw)

I'm cleaning up some old Linux kernel sandboxes, and
came across a patch which I had long ago made in a
local copy of include/asm-mips/processor.h but which
does not seem to have been propagated more widely.
I had added "__attribute__((aligned(8))))" to the
declarations of the mips_fpu_hard_struct and
mips_fpu_soft_struct data structures, presumably
because there was a need to ensure 64-bit alignment
of the elements so that LDC1 instructions would work.
We don't generally have a problem here, presumably
because either the previous data declarations naturally
align things to 64-bits, or because we've ensured things 
at a higher level of makfile compiler directives.  Are we 
in fact guarnateed to be safe without the source code 
directive, or should those __attribute__ directives be 
added as insurance?

            Kevin K.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>
To: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Alignment of FP Context Storage
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:24:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <015201c28f05$cb583800$10eca8c0@grendel> (raw)
Message-ID: <20021118132406.eFhzVN2tH1VeumJ9QaxE4QlS-7EtDw4Y8q4v8P-ni4U@z> (raw)

I'm cleaning up some old Linux kernel sandboxes, and
came across a patch which I had long ago made in a
local copy of include/asm-mips/processor.h but which
does not seem to have been propagated more widely.
I had added "__attribute__((aligned(8))))" to the
declarations of the mips_fpu_hard_struct and
mips_fpu_soft_struct data structures, presumably
because there was a need to ensure 64-bit alignment
of the elements so that LDC1 instructions would work.
We don't generally have a problem here, presumably
because either the previous data declarations naturally
align things to 64-bits, or because we've ensured things 
at a higher level of makfile compiler directives.  Are we 
in fact guarnateed to be safe without the source code 
directive, or should those __attribute__ directives be 
added as insurance?

            Kevin K.

             reply	other threads:[~2002-11-18 13:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-18 13:24 Kevin D. Kissell [this message]
2002-11-18 13:24 ` Alignment of FP Context Storage Kevin D. Kissell
2002-11-18 13:33 ` Ralf Baechle

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='015201c28f05$cb583800$10eca8c0@grendel' \
    --to=kevink@mips.com \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox