> From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: alignment errors on armel: what to do?
> true, i'm not saying it's non-compliant that it's char-aligned. it's > just interesting to observe that in i386, it seems to be guaranteed to > be word-aligned, even if i do: > > char g; > char f[4]; > > both &g and f are 32-bit aligned on i386. not so when i build on armel. > > given armel's failures on alignment errors (and i386's apparent ability > to handle them gracefully -- try passing f+1 to test() ) i find it > curious that gcc would be *more* cautious about over-alignment on i386 > than on armel. For armel, this is the expected behavior according to eabi, which uses "natural" alignment. Gcc for i386, I guess, uses the default alignment of 4 bytes. The compilers do not seem to be wrong. -- Weidong -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
