[U-Boot] [PATCH] GCC4.4: Squash multiple warnings due to strict aliasing

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>]

On Monday, September 26, 2011 11:44:22 AM Nick Thompson wrote:
> On 26/09/11 10:32, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Monday, September 26, 2011 11:26:51 AM Nick Thompson wrote:
> >> On 26/09/11 03:06, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> 
> >>>  arch/arm/include/asm/io.h |   30 ++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>>  1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> >>> index 1fbc531..61f4987 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h
> >>> @@ -78,43 +78,49 @@ static inline phys_addr_t virt_to_phys(void *
> >>> vaddr)
> >>> 
> >>>  extern inline void __raw_writesb(unsigned int addr, const void *data,
> >>>  int bytelen) {
> >>>  
> >>>  	uint8_t *buf = (uint8_t *)data;
> >>> 
> >>> -	while(bytelen--)
> >>> -		__arch_putb(*buf++, addr);
> >>> +	int i;
> >>> +	for (i = 0; i < bytelen; i++)
> >>> +		__arch_putb(buf[i], addr);
> >>> 
> >>>  }
> >> 
> >> This fixes the problem in these use cases, but leaves the door open.
> >> 
> >> Would it be better to change the __arch_putb macro into an extern inline
> >> function instead which would catch these and future cases?
> > 
> > Yes, but you'll need to do that on a much larger scale. Is anyone up for
> > doing it ?
> 
> I don't follow that. I found only three (identical) definitions in arm,
> sparc and sh. In those three cases __raw_writeb were also (identical)
> macro 'aliases' for __arch_putb.

Oh if it's only three arches then that's fine.

> 
> I guess you are referring to the testing required for all the boards in
> those three arches, or even just arm, with changes to all the
> (get|set)(b|w|l) cases? Maybe I see your point now...
> 
> Nick.