On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:58:10PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:55:43 -0500, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:51:05PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > Seeing arch/arm/cpu/armv8/config.mk, -mstrict-align option > > > was added to both PLATFORM_NO_UNALIGNED and PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS. > > > > > > $(PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS) is given to all compiled objects. > > > Adding the same option to also PLATFORM_NO_UNALIGNED is > > > redundant. > > > > > > For example, common/hush.o was compiled with double -mstrict-align. > > > You can comfirm it by checking common/.hush.o.cmd file. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]> > > > Cc: David Feng <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > > > With the v3 series about unaligned bits this patch should no longer be > > needed. > > Hmm... This patch is about not repeating -mstrict-align twice, which is > a bug unrelated with switching to -mno-unaligned-access. > > Besides, -mstrict-align means "Don't assume that unaligned accesses are > handled", which I think is for aarch64 what -mno-unaligned-access is > for arm(32), so it *should* be specified.
Yes, but my patch cleaned up the places that set PLATFORM_NO_UNALIGNED so this duplication was dropped. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
