Re: [LTP] ltp_clone alignment issues.

Garrett Cooper
2010-11-24T08:44:43Z

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO
<carmelo.amoroso@st.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/21/2010 4:34 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> 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>
>>  >>
>> <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.
>
> No issues.

Thanks for your testing and persistence in the issue.
-Garrett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.