On 9/28/09, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> wrote: > after dealing with #548815, i'm a little bit concerned about the > behavior of the kernel in the face of alignment errors on armel. > > i've read http://bugs.debian.org/397616 and followed the references in > there, so i think i understand why the default is to silently fail when > alignment errors happen. > > However, it seems like we should still be filing bugs against packages > which trigger alignment errors, no? Absolutely.
> i just turned on warnings in an NSLU2 running squeeze (a buildd for me) > and note alignment warnings from several processes: > should we be filing bugs for each of these? Oh yes > Should we be doing anything else? Making unaligned accesses cause SIGBUS errors is even more enlightening, though I wouldn't recommend it for a production machine. For example, sid's apt-get is currently Bus erroring as soon as it starts up, which makes things a little difficult... An argument against enabling fixup is that it papers over bugs so they remain undetected, while the fixup code is incredibly slow. A recent example which should have run in under a second took three hours with fixup enabled, which makes for programs that are silently and invisibly much slower on ARM CPUs than usual. M -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
