On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:32:16AM -0700, Weidong Li wrote: > > given armel's failures on alignment errors (and i386's apparent ability > > to handle them gracefully -- try passing f+1 to test() ) i find it > > curious that gcc would be *more* cautious about over-alignment on i386 > > than on armel.
> For armel, this is the expected behavior according to eabi, which uses > "natural" alignment. Gcc for i386, I guess, uses the default alignment > of 4 bytes. Nope, as of a recent gcc upgrade (4.2 or 4.3 I think?), there's no guarantee of a 4-byte alignment on i386 either; we started seeing lots of failures because of a 2-byte alignment being used in practice. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
