On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:10:04PM -0800, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Even pointers? I'd expect pointers to be aligned on 4-bytes boundaries?
>
> Pointers are not special in any way. Why should they? On the machine
> level pointers are just numbers.
Are pointers (along with ints/longs) on m68k naturally aligned on word
boundary even though they are 32 bit?
Anyway, here is the description that introduced alignment statement:
commit 02dba5c6439cff34936460b95cd1ba42b370f345
Author: ak <ak>
Date: Sat Jun 21 16:18:16 2003 +0000
[PATCH] Fix over-alignment problem on x86-64
Thanks to Jan Hubicka who suggested this fix.
The problem seems to be that gcc generates a 32byte alignment for static
objects > 32bytes. This causes gas to set a high alignment on the
section, which causes the uneven (not multiple of sizeof(struct
kernel_param)) section size. The pointer division with a base not being
a multiple of sizeof(*ptr) then causes the invalid result.
This just forces a small alignment, which makes the section end come out
with the correct alignment.
The only mystery left is why ld chose a 16 byte padding instead of
32byte.
BKrev: 3ef485487jZN-h3PtASDeL2Vs55NIg
I guess this does not directly apply to modversions since they are
currently under 32 bytes, but I wonder what happen if we decide to
extend one of the structures involved...
I guess explicitly setting alignment requirement for struct
module_version_attribute is the best option.
Thanks,
Dmitry
--
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
