From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44493)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1QTi5R-0002Ao-7p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:15:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1QTi5P-0001Lt-VN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:15:52 -0400
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:57649)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1QTi5P-0001Ll-Iz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:15:51 -0400
Received: by pzk30 with SMTP id 30so2302962pzk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4DED518E.6090001@twiddle.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:15:42 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1307370348-28400-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>	<1307370348-28400-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<CEE0589A-A662-4FE8-81BB-E686E4D6A521@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <CEE0589A-A662-4FE8-81BB-E686E4D6A521@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] move WORDS_ALIGNED to qemu-common.h
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 06/06/2011 10:15 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 06.06.2011 um 16:25 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> +#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__sparc__) || defined(__mips__) || defined(__hppa__) || defined(__ia64__)
>> +#define WORDS_ALIGNED
>> +#endif
> 
> Since it depends on the host and you're placing it directly under
> config-host.h inclusion, might it make sense to move the decision
> into configure instead, so that it ends up in config-host.h?

Hum, I now understand what Paulo was talking about elsewhere in the thread.

If he takes my suggestion to re-write the unaligned functions with GCC packed
support, these host ifdefs go away, and this objection disappears.  The
question becomes one of ordering.

Do we take his existing 3-part patch as-is, and the packed patch as a followup?
Do we convert to packed accesses first and move it around after?
Do we do it all in one step?


r~