From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:58:10 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 8/8] arm64: Do not double -mstrict-align option In-Reply-To: <20140226135543.GX16805@bill-the-cat> References: <1393393865-11608-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> <1393393865-11608-9-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> <20140226135543.GX16805@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20140226225810.55e66807@lilith> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Tom, On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:55:43 -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:51:05PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Seeing arch/arm/cpu/armv8/config.mk, -mstrict-align option > > was added to both PLATFORM_NO_UNALIGNED and PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS. > > > > $(PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS) is given to all compiled objects. > > Adding the same option to also PLATFORM_NO_UNALIGNED is > > redundant. > > > > For example, common/hush.o was compiled with double -mstrict-align. > > You can comfirm it by checking common/.hush.o.cmd file. > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada > > Cc: David Feng > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD > > Cc: Tom Rini > > With the v3 series about unaligned bits this patch should no longer be > needed. Hmm... This patch is about not repeating -mstrict-align twice, which is a bug unrelated with switching to -mno-unaligned-access. Besides, -mstrict-align means "Don't assume that unaligned accesses are handled", which I think is for aarch64 what -mno-unaligned-access is for arm(32), so it *should* be specified. Amicalement, -- Albert.