Le 04/05/2021 à 18:57, Eric Biggers a écrit :
On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 09:29:46PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
+#if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS)
+#define S_type u8
+#else
+#define S_type u32
+#endif
+
struct arc4_ctx {
- u32 S[256];
+ S_type S[256];
u32 x, y;
};
Is it actually useful to keep both versions? It seems we could just use the u8
version everywhere. Note that there aren't actually any unaligned memory
accesses, so choosing the version conditionally on
CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS seems odd. What are you trying to
determine by checking that?
Hi, this is a bad interpretation from me.
I thought that S[1] would likely use an odd address and would trigger an
unaligned access. But as we would read only 1 byte, this is not the case.
Looking at [1], we have : "At this point, it should be clear that
accessing a single byte (u8 or char) will never cause an unaligned
access, because all memory addresses are evenly divisible by one."
I wanted to avoid potential performance cost related to using char (i.e
u8) instead of int (i.e. u32).
On some architecture this could require some shift or masking or
whatever to "unpack" the values of S.
[1]:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/unaligned-memory-access.html
CJ
- Eric
