On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Jan Vesely wrote:
> why not use __attribute__ ((aligned(X))) for explicit padding?
That’s ① GCC-specific and ② relies on environmental guarantees
that cannot always be given (e.g. you cannot align a struct
more than the stack alignment if it is ever passed on the
stack; for s
Hi Ilia!
On 07/17/2014 04:35 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Thanks! Munged the commit description a little and pushed to the
> master branch. I think the patches for 10.2.4 have already been
> selected, so it should make its way into 10.2.5.
Awesome, thank you so much! Glad we could finally this one :)
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> Yes, implicit padding is definitely bad. I didn't realize I even had
> it in there, although I'm glad my STATIC_ASSERT did its job. There are
;-)
> various references to patches, however I haven't seen any. Perhaps
> they're lost in my inbox, or they wer
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>
>> Yes, implicit padding is definitely bad. I didn't realize I even had
>> it in there, although I'm glad my STATIC_ASSERT did its job. There are
>
> ;-)
>
>> various references to patches, however
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 10:21 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Eero Tamminen wrote:
>
> > While effect of unaligned accesses is normally invisible,
>
> No, the compiler is inserting padding here silently.
> We call this “implicit padding”. The problem with it
> is that this padd
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Eero Tamminen wrote:
>
>> While effect of unaligned accesses is normally invisible,
>
> No, the compiler is inserting padding here silently.
> We call this “implicit padding”. The problem with it
[ strip excellent expl
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> While effect of unaligned accesses is normally invisible,
No, the compiler is inserting padding here silently.
We call this “implicit padding”. The problem with it
is that this padding is architecture-dependent, and
some platforms have other alignment r
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Absolutely. Could the upstream Mesa developers maybe apply the patch
> as well?
They are not taking us for real, see #728053 for their feedback…
> We're putting lots of efforts into the m68k port and we have many
> users who love running De
Hi,
On keskiviikko 16 heinäkuu 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2014, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > Absolutely. Could the upstream Mesa developers maybe apply the patch
> > as well?
>
> They are not taking us for real, see #728053 for their feedback…
While effect of unaligned
Hi Thorsten!
On 07/16/2014 01:03 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> updated debdiff attached. Package compiles fine with it
> (on i386 and m68k), and the invalid alignment assumptions
> were made explicit with no ABI breakage.
Awesome! That's great to hear!
> Please apply.
Absolutely. Could the upstr
10 matches
Mail list logo
