[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] arm: set CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_STRICT_ALIGN=y for armv7 target

2016-02-29 Thread Jan Viktorin
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:55:38 +0100 Jan Viktorin wrote: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:14:58 +0100 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2015-12-09 16:16, Jan Viktorin: > > > This patch reduces number of warnings from 53 to 40. It removes the usual > > > false > > > positives utilizing unaligned_uint*_t d

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] arm: set CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_STRICT_ALIGN=y for armv7 target

2016-02-29 Thread Jan Viktorin
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:14:58 +0100 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-12-09 16:16, Jan Viktorin: > > This patch reduces number of warnings from 53 to 40. It removes the usual > > false > > positives utilizing unaligned_uint*_t data types. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin > > Applied, thanks >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] arm: set CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_STRICT_ALIGN=y for armv7 target

2016-02-29 Thread Thomas Monjalon
2015-12-09 16:16, Jan Viktorin: > This patch reduces number of warnings from 53 to 40. It removes the usual > false > positives utilizing unaligned_uint*_t data types. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin Applied, thanks Jan, what is the problem with the other ARM alignment warnings? Can they be fi

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/1] arm: set CONFIG_RTE_ARCH_STRICT_ALIGN=y for armv7 target

2015-12-09 Thread Jan Viktorin
This patch reduces number of warnings from 53 to 40. It removes the usual false positives utilizing unaligned_uint*_t data types. Signed-off-by: Jan Viktorin --- As far as I know, only a 64-bit unaligned access can be a problem for ARMv7. I found only one such occurence: 118 struct rte_mbuf *