[PATCH] ARM: Do not allow unaligned accesses when CONFIG_ALIGNMENT_TRAP

Dave Martin [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:14:08PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:13:31PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 04:26:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:

quoted

BTW, are we sure that the code generated with unaligned accesses is
better? AFAIK, while processors support unaligned accesses, they may
not always be optimal.

The code gcc generates to synthesise an unaligned access using aligned
accesses is pretty simplistic:

...

quoted

For code which natively needs to read unaligned fields from data structures,
I sincerely doubt that the CPU will not beat the above code for efficiency...

So if there's code doing unaligned access to data structures for a good
reason, building with unaligned access support turned on in the compiler
seems a good idea, if that code might performance-critical for anything.

gcc generates unaligned accesses in the the pcpu_dump_alloc_info()
function. We have a local variable like below (9 bytes):

	char empty_str[] = "--------";

and it looks like other stack accesses are unaligned:

c0082ba0 <pcpu_dump_alloc_info>:
c0082ba0:   e92d4ff0    push    {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp, lr}
c0082ba4:   e3074118    movw    r4, #28952  ; 0x7118
c0082ba8:   e24dd04c    sub sp, sp, #76 ; 0x4c
c0082bac:   e34c402a    movt    r4, #49194  ; 0xc02a
c0082bb0:   e58d1014    str r1, [sp, #20]
c0082bb4:   e58d0020    str r0, [sp, #32]
c0082bb8:   e8b40003    ldm r4!, {r0, r1}
c0082bbc:   e58d003f    str r0, [sp, #63]   <----------- !!!!!
c0082bc0:   e59d0014    ldr r0, [sp, #20]
c0082bc4:   e5d43000    ldrb    r3, [r4]

I haven't tried with -mno-unaligned-access, I suspect the variables on
the stack would be aligned.

So, it looks like empty_str may be misaligned on the stack, and the compiler
is doing a misaligned store when initialising it.

empty_str has type char[] so there are no alignment requirements.

Since the unaligned access support stuff is new, I'm suspicious of a
compiler bug here...  Can you follow up with your friendly neighbourhood
tools guys?

The compiler might be doing something unintentional, but I see no
violation of any rules here.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com