I've spent the whole night tracking down this bug I thought it was an issue with a recent upgrade of binutils
Please add my: Tested by: Mike Lothian <m...@fireburn.co.uk> On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 at 00:49 Grazvydas Ignotas <nota...@gmail.com> wrote: > Experimentation shows that without alignment factor gcc and clang choose > a factor of 16 even on IA-32, which doesn't match what malloc() uses (8). > The problem is it makes gcc assume the pointer is 16 byte aligned, so > with -O3 it starts using aligned SSE instructions that later fault, > so always specify a suitable alignment factor. > > Cc: Jonas Pfeil <pfeiljo...@gmx.de> > Fixes: cd2b55e5 "ralloc: Make sure ralloc() allocations match malloc()'s > alignment." > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100049 > Signed-off-by: Grazvydas Ignotas <nota...@gmail.com> > --- > no commit access > > src/util/ralloc.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/util/ralloc.c b/src/util/ralloc.c > index 03283de..7bf192e 100644 > --- a/src/util/ralloc.c > +++ b/src/util/ralloc.c > @@ -59,8 +59,10 @@ _CRTIMP int _vscprintf(const char *format, va_list > argptr); > struct > #ifdef _MSC_VER > __declspec(align(8)) > +#elif defined(__LP64__) > + __attribute__((aligned(16))) > #else > - __attribute__((aligned)) > + __attribute__((aligned(8))) > #endif > ralloc_header > { > -- > 2.7.4 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
