Hi Reinhard,
Hi Detlev,
diff --git a/lib/display_options.c b/lib/display_options.c index 20319e6..9048a8a 100644 --- a/lib/display_options.c +++ b/lib/display_options.c @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ void print_size(unsigned long long size, const char *s) #define DEFAULT_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES (16) int print_buffer (ulong addr, void* data, uint width, uint count, uint linelen) {
- uint8_t linebuf[MAX_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES + 1];
- uint32_t linebuf[MAX_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES/4 + 1]; uint32_t *uip = (void*)linebuf; uint16_t *usp = (void*)linebuf; uint8_t *ucp = (void*)linebuf;
Sorry to jump in here late, but I do not like this change. How can a reader of the code who has not followed the discussion here infer that the datatype is there to ensure alignment?
I am willing to bet at least a few beers that it will not take long until someone posts a patch changing the datatype back, because c-strings are bytes.
I would much rather see an alignment attribute, which will _document_ the problem _and_ fix it, instead of only fixing it.
One could add a comment above like: /* * it is mandatory that linebuf stays uint32_t aligned * since we are going to slide along it with a uint32_t * pointer */ uint32_t linebuf[MAX_LINE_LENGTH_BYTES/4 + 1];
I personally prefer this above an attribute. Its disputeable but I prefer to do things with "normal C constructs" where possible. You can already see from the discussion that __aligned as a toolchain-abstracted variant (defined in a toolchain header file) or attribute((__aligned__)) as a very toolchain dependant variant shall be used ;)
Well of course, but we have need for such pragmas anyway:
[dzu@pollux u-boot-testing (master)]$ grep -re '__attribute__[ \t]*((packed' . | wc -l 257
I agree that if we can fix something with "standards", we should do it. But if the standards do not provide a clean way for something, but instead requires the "misuse of the side-effect of a different thing", then I much rather use the a non-standard construct _intended_ for the problem.
No comment is neccessary when we use the attribute - this alone is a positive aspect for me - code should always document itself. Whenever I need a comment to describe the intention of a c statement, I rethink what I try to do.
Anyway, both patches have been offered, any will work for me as long as I can see ASCII properly on ARM machines...
without patch: 22000000: 41424344 41424344 41424344 41424344 ADCBADCBADCBAV4. with patch: 22000000: 41424344 41424344 41424344 41424344 DCBADCBADCBADCBA
Sorry for being so late, but I really prefer the attribute variant.
Cheers Detlev