> bash-3.2$ svn diff jtag.c
> Index: jtag.c
> ===
> --- jtag.c(revision 1204)
> +++ jtag.c(working copy)
this works fine, on my board.
thanks.
Hiroshi Ito
Media Lab. Inc.,
URL http://www.mlb.co.jp ( Sorry, Japanese
Duane Ellis wrote:
> micheal> [c requires aligned pointers]
>
> No, The C standard states it is implementation defined, i don't have a
> copy handy to quote chapter & verse.
I can't find it either. What I found was (in C99):
6.5.3.4:
The implementation of the alloc function should ensure that its
I checked the following in just now
-Duane.
bash-3.2$ svn diff jtag.c
Index: jtag.c
===
--- jtag.c(revision 1204)
+++ jtag.c(working copy)
@@ -463,6 +463,39 @@
int offset;
u8 *t;
+/*
+ * WARNING:
+ *
duane> [restating the problem differently to explain it]
Rick Altherr> Thus, not only is the actual fix necessary,
Rick Altherr> but a nice big comment describing the problem is
appropriate as well.
Always helpful to explain a tricky piece of code bit more in comments.
rick Altherr> Attached
On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Duane Ellis wrote:
Hiroshi san,
What was the original complaint? If I understand correctly, the
problem
was this:
==
cmd_que_allocate() - returns an un-aligned pointer.
==
Is that correct? If so - the cause, and solution is utterly simple,
an
rick> This doesn't change the pointer returned by cmd_queue_alloc() at all.
the problem I believe is the *NEXT* allocation that is failing, after an
"odd-sized" request, you get an odd aligned pointer.
Two odd requests - should give you an even.. (sort of, not exactly, it
has to be 4 bytes her
Hiroshi san,
What was the original complaint? If I understand correctly, the problem
was this:
==
cmd_que_allocate() - returns an un-aligned pointer.
==
Is that correct? If so - the cause, and solution is utterly simple, and
is as follows:
The solution is to *ROUND*UP* all re
Rick Altherr wrote:
> Ironically, my day job has been exclusively on non-x86 platforms for
> years and only recently started with x86.
>
> Pointers to data types should be aligned such that the data type is
> naturally aligned. That would mean that a 16-bit type should be
> 16-bit aligned. The qu
On Dec 2, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Michael Schwingen wrote:
Rick Altherr wrote:
I'm also not entirely sure that a structure must always be aligned.
I'm aware that some architectures will trap if an unaligned access is
encountered, but the OS should catch the trap and handle the
unaligned
access c
Rick Altherr wrote:
> I'm also not entirely sure that a structure must always be aligned.
> I'm aware that some architectures will trap if an unaligned access is
> encountered, but the OS should catch the trap and handle the unaligned
> access correctly.
No. AFAIK, C requires pointers to be ali
I think a combination of your two approaches might be more
appropriate. Let's introduce a new function
cmd_queue_allocate_aligned() that does the alignment as well as the
allocation. The benefit is that only cases where alignment is
necessary can use the new function, but they still only
> I'm also not entirely sure that a structure must always be aligned.
C language, one of what is required is,
member of structure should aligne to natively accessable.
# I think... but I'm not sure...
> I'm aware that some architectures will trap if an unaligned access is
> encountere
> > How about this patch. this also works.
> >
> > Is it acceptable ?
>
> I change the code.
> this is more readable.
same, but revert unnecessary change.
Hiroshi Ito
Media Lab. Inc.,
URL http://www.mlb.co.jp ( Sorry, Japanese only. )
TEL +81-3-5294-7255 FAX +81-3-5294-7256
Index:
> How about this patch. this also works.
>
> Is it acceptable ?
I change the code.
this is more readable.
Hiroshi Ito
Media Lab. Inc.,
URL http://www.mlb.co.jp ( Sorry, Japanese only. )
TEL +81-3-5294-7255 FAX +81-3-5294-7256
Index: src/jtag/jtag.c
===
How about this patch. this also works.
Is it acceptable ?
> On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Hiroshi Ito wrote:
>
> > I'm running openocd on EP9307(arm925t) CPU, as a HOST.
> > and target is EP9307 and ARM926t with EP9307 GPIO.
> >
> > revision 1183 cause seg fault.
> > The problem is, cmd_queue_al
On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Hiroshi Ito wrote:
I'm running openocd on EP9307(arm925t) CPU, as a HOST.
and target is EP9307 and ARM926t with EP9307 GPIO.
revision 1183 cause seg fault.
The problem is, cmd_queue_alloc returns unaligned pointer.
but it is used as a pointer to structure.
This pa
I'm running openocd on EP9307(arm925t) CPU, as a HOST.
and target is EP9307 and ARM926t with EP9307 GPIO.
revision 1183 cause seg fault.
The problem is, cmd_queue_alloc returns unaligned pointer.
but it is used as a pointer to structure.
This patch fix it. and it is working.
Index: src/jtag/jtag.
17 matches
Mail list logo
