On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:50:30 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 2010/3/8 Pawe=C5=82 Sikora :
> > hi,
> >
> > during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
> > i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
> > code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with si
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:04:04PM +0600, Alexey Salmin wrote:
> >> Wow. What for?
> >
> > Well, simply because it is not compiled with strict alignment. There might
> > also be some optimization in
> > memory operation that does unaligned accesses.
>
> I always thought that unaligned access is
Alexey Salmin wrote:
> I always thought that unaligned access is much slower than aligned one.
It is not *MUCH* slower, just slower (unless you cross cache line
boundary). Unaligned accesses are very useful for improving
performance of, among other things, certain hash functions (e.g. Paul
Hsieh'
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Alexey Salmin wrote:
I am interested in an -mstrict-alignment option for x86.
>>>
>>> Not sure it will be useful. The libc still does unaligned accesses IIRC.
>>>
>>
>> Wow. What for?
>
> Well, simply be
On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Alexey Salmin wrote:
>>> I am interested in an -mstrict-alignment option for x86.
>>
>> Not sure it will be useful. The libc still does unaligned accesses IIRC.
>>
>
> Wow. What for?
Well, simply because it is not compiled with strict alignment. There might
also
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora :
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
>>> i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
>>> code b
On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora :
>> hi,
>>
>> during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
>> i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
>> code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
>>
>> i
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora :
> hi,
>
> during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
> i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
> code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
>
> it works pretty fine and catches alignment violations but
On Monday 08 March 2010 16:46:10 Richard Guenther wrote:
> 2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora :
> > hi,
> >
> > during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
> > i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
> > code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with si
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora :
> hi,
>
> during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
> i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
> code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
>
> it works pretty fine and catches alignment violations but
You define STRICT_ALIGNED to be 1 in i386.h or provide an option to
turn that on/off like the rs6000 target does.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
it works pretty fine and catches alignment violations but Jakub Jelinek
had told me (on glibc
12 matches
Mail list logo