On 13/03/2025 1:53 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > x86 is one of the few architectures where .align has the same meaning as > .balign; most other architectures (Arm, PPC, and RISC-V in particular) > give it the same meaning as .p2align. Aligning every one of these item > to 256 bytes (on all 64-bit architectures except x86-64) is clearly too > much. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > --- > Even uniformly aligning to 4 (x86, Arm32) or 8 bytes is too much imo, > when some of the items require only 1- or 2-byte alignment. It matters about the largest item, not the smallest. > > Is there a reason only x86 defines SYMBOLS_ORIGIN, to halve the address > table in size? (Arm32 and other possible 32-bit ports of course have no > need for doing so, but for 64-bit ones that can make quite a bit of a > difference.) I think the likely answer is that noone really understands how the symbol generation works, and didn't know that setting SYMBOLS_ORIGIN would be relevant. I had a nasty interaction with the symbol code for the IDT-gen work, and it took a while to even get this intermediate file out. ~Andrew
