On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 08:07 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > The reason I kept the byte-shifting versions around was that for > arches that need special handling of unaligned access, Are there any? GCC should emit appropriate code for the packed-structure version on all architectures, shouldn't it? > they could do the byteshifting manually and get the unaligned access > 'for free' as it were. GCC really ought to be able to sort that out for itself. Let the dog see the rabbit. > The packed struct implementation works fine for the same endianness, > but I tried to make this as little of a change for each arch as a > consolidation step...which is why I kept the > memmove variant. We can discuss moving arches over to other > implementations after the fact. TBH I'd rather just provide the generic implementations (using packed structs) then convert the arches to them one at a time. -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
