Re: bit fields && data tearing

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/08/2014 07:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the extra requirement I added is basically nonsense, since the
>> only issue is what instructions the compiler is emitting. So if compiler
>> thinks the alignment is natural and combines the writes -- ok. If the
>> compiler thinks the alignment is off and doesn't combine the writes --
>> also ok.
> 
> Yes, I think I can agree that the only real problem is gcc thinking the
> store or load needs splitting.
> 

That seems much saner, and yes, that applies to any architecture which
needs unaligned references.  Now, if the references are *actually*
unaligned they can end up being split even on x86, especially if they
cross cache line boundaries.

	-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html