Re: Unaligned access fault in fxp on alpha

Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> 
> Kris Kennaway writes:
>  > I reported this to mux 3 days ago, but haven't heard any
>  > acknowledgement from him of the issue.  Could someone else
>  > investigate?  This is a reproducible panic.
>  > 
> 
> Can you try this patch please?
> 
> It causes gcc to emit slightly different code, which deals with
> storing to aligned 16-bit values.
> 
> What's happening is that because the u_int32_t link_addr (and rbd_addr)
> fields preceded the "size" field, gcc was assuming that the rfa struct
> would be aligned and was cheating.  It was using operations which only
> work on aligned-32 bit values on 16-bit values.  Removing the
> u_int32_t's disabuses gcc of this assumption, therby causing safe
> code to be emitted.
> 
> I don't understand why mux changed these fields in rev 1.31, with, so
> I'm not sure that I want to commit this until mux reviews it.  For all
> I know, it breaks sparc64 or something..

Thanks Andrew, I should have taken care of this since some time but was
veyr busy these days.

I removed them because they were just looking bogus.  I wanted to ask
people to test a patch adding a __packed in the struct definition to see
if it fixed things.  If it works with a __packed keyword, I'd like
it better than going back to having an array of four u_int8_t.
Otherwise I'll put the u_int8_t back.

Cheers,
Maxime