On 13.03.2025 17:07, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 13/03/2025 1:53 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >> x86 is one of the few architectures where .align has the same meaning as >> .balign; most other architectures (Arm, PPC, and RISC-V in particular) >> give it the same meaning as .p2align. Aligning every one of these item >> to 256 bytes (on all 64-bit architectures except x86-64) is clearly too >> much. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
Thanks. >> --- >> Even uniformly aligning to 4 (x86, Arm32) or 8 bytes is too much imo, >> when some of the items require only 1- or 2-byte alignment. > > It matters about the largest item, not the smallest. The labels we generate are all followed by uniform-granularity data. Labels starting arrays of bytes or shorts are nevertheless 4- or 8-byte aligned. >> Is there a reason only x86 defines SYMBOLS_ORIGIN, to halve the address >> table in size? (Arm32 and other possible 32-bit ports of course have no >> need for doing so, but for 64-bit ones that can make quite a bit of a >> difference.) > > I think the likely answer is that noone really understands how the > symbol generation works, and didn't know that setting SYMBOLS_ORIGIN > would be relevant. Hmm, I didn't consider this might be the reason, but you may well be right. Jan
