On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 15:50 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Mathias Hasselmann <mathias openismus com> > Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:12:19 +0100 > > > <offtopic> > > I didn't write that code, but I'd consider it a philosophical question, > > if that code or your CPU architecture is "buggy"... ;-) > > </offtopic> > > Whether CPU architectures should trap on unaligned loads and > stores is indeed an interesting philosophical discussion. > > But the C language is pretty clear on this case, in that pointer > addresses should meet the necessary alignment for the given type > behind that pointer. > > So in a C language sense, the code is in fact buggy. > > Alternatively, we can say that GTK+ knows better and simply > block out such dumb platforms at the top-level configure :-) Plus you don't want to trap.... it's going to be slow and might even fill up the user's logs. (This used to be a problem on Alpha Linux long a Grep for '<< 8' in the gdkpixbuf sources and you'll find a small fraction of the other places where we go through effort avoid unaligned access. - Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part