>>> Misaligned pointer is explicitly documented as undefined behavior
>>> in the C standard (C11 6.3.2.3 p7).
>> So what? Do you have reason to think that sys/arch/x86 will at some
>> point be ported to a compiler [] that does something unexpected with
>> that code?
> Due to UB a compiler is free
On 08.07.2018 17:30, Mouse wrote:
> Caveat: this is all opinion. I'm not the one doing the work here.
>
> src/sys/arch/x86/x86: mpbios.c
>
> Remove unaligned access to mpbios_page[]
>
> sys/arch/x86/x86/mpbios.c:308:11, load of misaligned address
> 0x800031c7a413
On 08.07.2018 17:16, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 8, 2018, at 6:30 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>> In future __NO_STRICT_ALIGNMENT could be defined for aarch64, at least
>> for the use of acpica (which still contains a fallback for Itanium
>> without misaligned access, but not actively
Caveat: this is all opinion. I'm not the one doing the work here.
src/sys/arch/x86/x86: mpbios.c
Remove unaligned access to mpbios_page[]
sys/arch/x86/x86/mpbios.c:308:11, load of misaligned address
0x800031c7a413 for type 'const __uint16_t' which requires 2
On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 04:49:51PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 08.07.2018 12:01, Martin Husemann wrote:
> >
> > This is unecessary churn for no good reason, please stop it.
> >
> > But worse are the other changes you are doing where kubsan insists on
> > natural alignement for
> On Jul 8, 2018, at 6:30 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
> In future __NO_STRICT_ALIGNMENT could be defined for aarch64, at least
> for the use of acpica (which still contains a fallback for Itanium
> without misaligned access, but not actively maintained).
>
> Linux uses a different approach
On 08.07.2018 15:53, Jaromír Doleček wrote:
> Le dim. 8 juil. 2018 à 15:29, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
>> I've introduced the change to mpbios.c as it was small, selfcontained
>> and without the need to decorate the whole function.
>
> Am I reading the code wrong or you actually introduced bug
Le dim. 8 juil. 2018 à 15:29, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
> I've introduced the change to mpbios.c as it was small, selfcontained
> and without the need to decorate the whole function.
Am I reading the code wrong or you actually introduced bug in mpbios.c?
Shouldn't this:
memtop |=
On 08.07.2018 11:24, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Jaromír Dole?ek wrote:
>>> Module Name:src
>>> Committed By: kamil
>>> Date: Sat Jul 7 23:05:50 UTC 2018
>>>
>>> Modified Files:
>>> src/sys/arch/x86/x86: mpbios.c
>>>
>>> Log Message:
On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 09:35:16PM +, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: kamil
> Date: Sat Jul 7 21:35:16 UTC 2018
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/amd64/include: tss.h
> src/sys/arch/i386/include: tss.h
>
> Log Message:
> Correct unportable
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018, 11:43 AM Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
> For those interested in some of the history:
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-May/000791.html
>
>
> ...and the subsequent thread went just as I expected it might.
11 matches
Mail list logo