Re: [LTP] ltp_clone alignment issues.

Garrett Cooper
2010-11-21T03:34:19Z

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Carmelo AMOROSO
<carmelo.amoroso@st.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/11/2010 10:59 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO
>> <carmelo.amoroso@st.com> wrote:
>>  > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>  > Hash: SHA1
>>  >
>>  > On 11/11/2010 8:57 AM, Subrata Modak wrote:
>>  >> On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:24 +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>  >> On 10/4/2010 9:05 PM, Hannu Heikkinen wrote:
>>  >>> On 04/10/10 15:04 +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>  >>> -clip-
>>  >>> >
>>  >>> > Hannu,
>>  >>> > I don't think that it is a good to force the alignment; we could need to
>>  >>> > write a test case that calls LTP_clone with an unaligned stack just to
>>  >>> > test the behavior of the clone implementation.
>>  >>> >
>>  >>> > Likely, it should be useful to add a check inside the C lib clone
>>  >>> > implementation (arch specific) to protect against unaligned stack, but
>>  >>> > this is a different matter.
>>  >>> >
>>  >>> > I would just leave the LTP_clone passing the argument to the clone as
>>  >>> > they came from the caller.
>>  >>> >
>>  >>> > Regards,
>>  >>> > Carmelo
>>  >>> >
>>  >>
>>  >>> Hi Carmelo,
>>  >>
>>  >>> you've got point, yes. I was just so worried about the fact that in ARM
>>  >>> architectures that previous eg clone02 failed due to alignment errors.
>>  >>> But your fix of course fixed that issue, and it gives as a possiblity
>>  >>> to make test case against alignment issues, quite right.
>>  >>
>>  >>> br,
>>  >>> Hannu
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Folks,
>>  >> any change to get this included for the next release ?
>>  >>
>>  >>> Did we miss any patch here ?
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > I think so: this one
>>  >
>> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4CA09D4D.6050708%40st.com&forum_name=ltp-list
>> <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4CA09D4D.6050708%40st.com&forum_name=ltp-list>
>>
>> Is the above patch endian agnostic?
>>
>
> Yes, definitely. The patch just removed an wrong manipulation of the
> stack arguments for all the archs.

I'm going to test it in just a bit, but please let me know if you
run into any issues.
Thanks,
-Garrett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today