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 ;)
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
Reinhard