This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC ARM: aligned access
- From: Peng Fan <van dot freenix at gmail dot com>
- To: Matt Thomas <matt at 3am-software dot com>, Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:14:31 +0800
- Subject: Re: GCC ARM: aligned access
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <540320F5 dot 9030501 at gmail dot com> <1cf062bd-289a-4375-ab2b-e34419d22bd3 at email dot android dot com> <7567D3C5-285C-480B-B547-84387E2C4994 at 3am-software dot com>
On 09/01/2014 08:09 AM, Matt Thomas wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> wrote:
>>> I am writing some code and found that system crashed. I found it was
>>> unaligned access which causes `data abort` exception. I write a piece
>>> of code and objdump
>>> it. I am not sure this is right or not.
>>> arm-poky-linux-gnueabi-gcc -marm -mno-thumb-interwork -mabi=aapcs-linux
>>> -mword-relocations -march=armv7-a -mno-unaligned-access
>>> -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -fno-common -ffixed-r9 -msoft-float
>>> -pipe -O2 -c 2.c -o 2.o
>>> arch is armv7-a and used '-mno-unaligned access'
>> I think this is totally expected. You were passed a u8 pointer which is aligned for that type (no restrictions likely). You cast it to a type with stricter alignment requirements. The code is just flawed. Some CPUs handle unaligned accesses but not your ARM.
armv7 and armv6 arch except armv6-m support unaligned access. a u8 pointer is casted to u32 pointer, should gcc take the align problem into consideration to avoid possible errors? because -mno-unaligned-access.
> While armv7 and armv6 supports unaligned access, that support has to be
> enabled by the underlying O/S. Not knowing the underlying environment,
> I can't say whether that support is enabled. One issue we had in NetBSD
> in moving to gcc4.8 was that the NetBSD/arm kernel didn't enable unaligned
> access for armv CPUs. We quickly changed things so unaligned access
> is supported.
Yeah. by set a hardware bit in arm coprocessor, unaligned access will not cause data abort exception.
I just wonder is the following correct? should gcc take the responsibility to take care possible unaligned pointer `u8 *data`? because -mno-unaligned-access is passed to gcc.
int func(u8 *data)
return *(unsigned int *)data;
0: e5900000 ldr r0, [r0]
4: e12fff1e bx lr