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

[Nick Thompson <nick.thompson@ge.com>]

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.

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.