Hi Tom, On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:35:55 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:37:55PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > > Hi Måns, > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:33:09 +0000, Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The problem is that the current settings do > > > the exact opposite. By using -munaligned-access by default, you are > > > asking the compiler to go ahead and do whatever it thinks is best, which > > > is sometimes to perform an intentional unaligned access. Exactly when > > > this will happen is largely impossible to predict. > > > > The -munaligned-access option does *not* "[ask] the compiler to go > > ahead and do whatever it thinks is best", it tells it to use direct > > native accesses when unaligned accesses are required, as opposed to > > splitting unaligned accesses into smaller but aligned aligned native > > accesses, which is what you get with -mno-unaligned-access. > > Incorrect, and gets to the heart of our problem. It says that native > unaligned accesses are valid and make use of this as appropriate. So > our goal of "make the compiler use native unaligned accesses so we can > find bad code" is invalid. It's making properly written code fail > instead and improperly written code will still be just as improper. Code which translates into uncontrolled unaligned accesses is not properly written. Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
