[U-Boot] [PATCH 8/8] arm64: Do not double -mstrict-align option

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Tom,

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:03:08 -0500, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:58:10PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:55:43 -0500, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> 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 <yamada.m at jp.panasonic.com>
> > > > Cc: David Feng <fenghua at phytium.com.cn>
> > > > Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net>
> > > > Cc: Tom Rini <trini at ti.com>
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, but my patch cleaned up the places that set PLATFORM_NO_UNALIGNED
> so this duplication was dropped.

Oh, ok. My bad, then.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.