LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>,
	linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:59:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070216015934.GB18987@linux-mips.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070215172720.3e9ce464.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:27:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> No, icc surely supports attribute(packed).  My point is that we shouldn't
> rely upon the gcc info file for this, because other compilers can (or
> could) be used to build the kernel.
> 
> So it would be safer if the C spec said (or could be interpreted to say)
> "members of packed structures are always copied bytewise".  So then we
> can be reasonably confident that this change won't break the use of
> those compilers.
> 
> But then, I don't even know if any C standard says anything about packing.

Memory layout and alignment of structures and members are implementation
defined according to the C standard; the standard provides no means to
influence these.  So it takes a compiler extension such as gcc's
__attribute__().

> Ho hum.  Why are we talking about this, anyway?  Does the patch make the
> code faster?  Or just nicer?

Smaller binary and from looking at the disassembly a tad faster also.

  Ralf

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-16  1:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20050830104056.GA4710@linux-mips.org>
     [not found] ` <20060306.203218.69025300.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp>
2006-03-07  1:05   ` [PATCH] 64bit unaligned access on 32bit kernel Andrew Morton
2006-03-07  2:03     ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-07 18:09     ` Ralf Baechle
2006-03-08  4:58       ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-08  5:12         ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-14 21:42     ` [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations Ralf Baechle
2007-02-15  4:39       ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-15  8:35         ` Marcel Holtmann
2007-02-15 14:34         ` Ralf Baechle
2007-02-15 21:53           ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-15 22:18             ` Ralf Baechle
2007-02-15 23:05               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-02-15 23:38               ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-16  0:13                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-02-16  0:43                 ` Ralf Baechle
2007-02-16  1:27                   ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-16  1:59                     ` Ralf Baechle [this message]
2007-02-20 13:50                     ` Pavel Machek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070216015934.GB18987@linux-mips.org \
    --to=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations.' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).