On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:50:30 -0800, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/3/8 Pawe=C5=82 Sikora pl...@agmk.net:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
code before it appears on
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora pl...@agmk.net:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
it works pretty fine and catches alignment
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora pl...@agmk.net:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible
On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Alexey Salmin wrote:
I am interested in an -mstrict-alignment option for x86.
Not sure it will be useful. The libc still does unaligned accesses IIRC.
Wow. What for?
Well, simply because it is not compiled with strict alignment. There might
also be some
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Tristan Gingold ging...@adacore.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Alexey Salmin wrote:
I am interested in an -mstrict-alignment option for x86.
Not sure it will be useful. The libc still does unaligned accesses IIRC.
Wow. What for?
Well, simply
Alexey Salmin wrote:
I always thought that unaligned access is much slower than aligned one.
It is not *MUCH* slower, just slower (unless you cross cache line
boundary). Unaligned accesses are very useful for improving
performance of, among other things, certain hash functions (e.g. Paul
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:04:04PM +0600, Alexey Salmin wrote:
Wow. What for?
Well, simply because it is not compiled with strict alignment. There might
also be some optimization in
memory operation that does unaligned accesses.
I always thought that unaligned access is much slower
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
it works pretty fine and catches alignment violations but Jakub Jelinek
had told me (on
You define STRICT_ALIGNED to be 1 in i386.h or provide an option to
turn that on/off like the rs6000 target does.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Paweł Sikora pl...@agmk.net wrote:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora pl...@agmk.net:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
it works pretty fine and catches alignment
On Monday 08 March 2010 16:46:10 Richard Guenther wrote:
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora pl...@agmk.net:
hi,
during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu
11 matches
Mail list logo