Received: from nic.funet.fi (nic.funet.fi [128.214.248.6]) by odie.barnet.ac.uk (8.8.2/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA27829 for <willy@odie.fluff.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:19:16 GMT
Received: from vger.rutgers.edu ([128.6.190.2]) by nic.funet.fi with ESMTP id <65911-8831>; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:17:35 +0200
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <213188-11748>; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:07:26 -0500
Message-Id: <199701201411.OAA23965@spider>
Subject: Re: Arm Linux
To: linux-arm@vger.rutgers.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:11:08 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: John.Tytgat@barco.com
From: John.Tytgat@barco.com (John Tytgat)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-arm@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
[Sorry about the previous non-reply...]
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Philip Blundell wrote:
> But on an old ARM, you will get `bar = 0x04030201'. The reason is that
> the dereference of `bar' compiles to an LDR instruction. In general, the
> compiler can't know the alignment at compile-time, so there's not a lot
> else it *can* do. Old ARM machines silently discard the low two address
> bits when you ask them to do a word access. This differs, as I said
> before, from the Intel (where you get the correct access performed, albeit
> more slowly) and the Alpha/SPARC/etc (where you get a fault, and your OS
> has to patch up in software).
Wouldn't it be the best that a StrongARM owner traces code like this (as
the StrongARM can abort on such constructs when configured) ?
