Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> writes: > Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> writes: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:21:39 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:24:47AM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>> > Hi Tom, >>> > >>> > On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:05:33 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > When we tell the compiler to optimize for ARMv7 it assumes a default of >>> > > unaligned accesses being supported at the hardware level and can make >>> > > use of this to perform what it deems as an optimization in any case, >>> > > including allowing for data to become unaligned. We explicitly disallow >>> > > this hardware feature so we must tell the compiler. >>> > > >>> > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> >>> > > Cc: Mans Rullgard <m...@mansr.com> >>> > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> >>> > >>> > NAK -- the discrepancy between the compiler being told to allow native >>> > unaligned accesses while at the same time telling the hardware to trap >>> > them is conscious and voluntary. It was chosen to help detect unaligned >>> > accesses which are rarely necessary and can be explicitly performed by >>> > software on a case by case basis. >>> > >>> > If and when a specific file requires unaligned access which cannot be >>> > made by some other mean than enabling -mno-unaligned-access, then this >>> > file should have it added, not the whole of U-Boot. >>> >>> Right, I recall the discussion, and we chose wrong. >> >> I am quite prepared to discuss whether we chose wrong or right, and >> to change my mind when the conditions are right, but I'll need more than >> such a short and simple statement. :) > > I already gave you a detailed explanation some months ago. You refused > to read it.
For reference: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/171876 -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
