nvm I see the doc patch, thanks
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > This makes sense. Probably there is some documentation in c-user > manual that needs tweaking. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: >> The partition buffer area alignment required by rtems_partition_create() >> was too strict since it was checked via _Addresses_Is_aligned() which >> uses CPU_ALIGNMENT. The CPU_ALIGNMENT must take long double and vector >> data type alignment requirements into account. For the partition >> maintenance only pointer alignment is required (Chain_Node, which >> consists of two pointers). The user should ensure that its partition >> buffer area is suitable for the items it wants to manage. The user >> should not be burdened to provide buffers with the maximum architecture >> alignment, e.g. why need a 16 byte aligned buffer if you want to manage >> items with 4 byte integers only? >> >> Update #3482. >> --- >> cpukit/rtems/src/partcreate.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/cpukit/rtems/src/partcreate.c b/cpukit/rtems/src/partcreate.c >> index c058adff1f..9484ccb1c3 100644 >> --- a/cpukit/rtems/src/partcreate.c >> +++ b/cpukit/rtems/src/partcreate.c >> @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ rtems_status_code rtems_partition_create( >> !_Partition_Is_buffer_size_aligned( buffer_size ) ) >> return RTEMS_INVALID_SIZE; >> >> - if ( !_Addresses_Is_aligned( starting_address ) ) >> - return RTEMS_INVALID_ADDRESS; >> + if ( !_Partition_Is_buffer_area_aligned( starting_address ) ) >> + return RTEMS_INVALID_ADDRESS; >> >> #if defined(RTEMS_MULTIPROCESSING) >> if ( _Attributes_Is_global( attribute_set ) && >> -- >> 2.13.7 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@rtems.org >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
