Summary: | Fixes for loadable modules and strict aligned access in int10 module | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | xorg | Reporter: | Nick Hudson <skrll> | ||||
Component: | Server/General | Assignee: | Daniel Stone <daniel> | ||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> | ||||
Severity: | normal | ||||||
Priority: | high | CC: | ajax, matthieu.herrb | ||||
Version: | unspecified | ||||||
Hardware: | Other | ||||||
OS: | NetBSD | ||||||
Whiteboard: | 2011BRB_Reviewed | ||||||
i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Nick Hudson
2004-11-12 02:33:56 UTC
Created attachment 1297 [details] [review] See bug text I should mention that the diff is actually against the NetBSD xsrc cvs module, but should apply to xorg relatively easily are the int10 fixes generally applicable (i.e. are they expected to work on other architectures)? Most platforms do not support unaligned access. i386 is one of the few that do. The diffs could be made more generic as I only with the arm not supporting unlianged accesses. egbert can probably better comment on this one Sorry about the phenomenal bug spam, guys. Adding xorg-team@ to the QA contact so bugs don't get lost in future. is int10 speed actually an issue here? if not, we should probably just do byte accesses everywhere we can, for safety. i'm really not keen on doing the 'if it's arm, then we need aligned' thing. Is there still a problem here? It doesn't seem like it is... reopen if I'm wrong. Also, the patch is very wrong wrt ifdef-fu, removing patch keyword. |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.