On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Tony Luck <tony.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Chen Gang <gang.c...@asianux.com> wrote:
>> using 'unsigned int *', implicitly:
>> ./ia64/include/asm/bitops.h:63:__set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
>
> There is some downside on ia64 to your suggestion. If "addr" is properly
> aligned for an "int", but misaligned for a long ... i.e. addr%8 == 4, then
> I'll
> take an unaligned reference trap if I work with long* where the current code
> working with int* does not.
>
> Now perhaps all the callers do guarantee long* alignment? But I don't know.
>
> Apart from uniformity, there doesn't see to be any upside to changing this.
The address pointers have been supposed to be "long *" for a very long time.
Probably alpha (the second official Linux platform) did it
differently, and never
standardized to "long *".
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
