On 2 April 2013 17:56, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > Il 02/04/2013 18:43, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> Doesn't this incorrectly set the long alignment to 8 >> for ppc64abi32? (Probably similar problem for >> sparc32plus and mipsn32. The underlying point here is that >> alignment is an ABI decision and you can have more than one >> ABI for a particular TARGET_FOO.) > > Hmm, seems like you're right _but_ I am not sure if the *current* code > is correct. On real hardware, the CPUs are certainly not able to do > unaligned 32-bit accesses, and target_long/target_ulong pointers look > like they're never used for data that comes from target memory.
Did you check linux-user too? I'm pretty sure we have structs and so on that mirror target memory and use target_ulong. > What these targets want to have 32-bit alignment is really > abi_long/abi_ulong, and that's already okay. Alex, Blue, Aurelien, > can you test the above three targets? Mmm, rather than speculating we should just confirm what gcc thinks the alignment of void* should be on these targets (since "a thing the size of a pointer" is what target_long/ulong represent, I think.) That said, we should keep bugfixes and cleanup patches separated, so on approach for proceeding with these cleanup patches is just to define TARGET_LONG_ALIGNMENT based on TARGET_ABI32 or whatever is appropriate for each target CPU. Then we retain the same behaviour. -- PMM
