Message ID | 4E734541.7030204@pvittet.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:46:57 +0200 Pierre Vittet <piervit@pvittet.com> wrote: > Hello, [...] > The patch also remove a preprocessor #if testing if > _STRING_ARCH_unaligned is defined. This symbol is never defined in gcc > and could be only used in CFLAGS. Looking at the code, it does not looks > usefull to define it (and it is only tested on libiberty/md5.c and > libiberty/sha1.c), as we already check the pointer alignement, so > removing it clean the code. I searched on google, and it does not looks > to be used. Does anyone want it or thing that it should not be removed? > > Ok for trunk ? I can't formally approve this patch, but I do hope it will be reviewed and approved soon. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-09/msg00126.html and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00963.html and http://groups.google.com/group/gcc-melt/browse_thread/thread/292c394fea5089c7 Regards.
Hello, Ping! I would like to get a return on this patch. I don't know quite well the status of libiberty in GNU, please if I must this patch on another mailing list, please say me on which. Thanks! Pierre Vittet
Index: libiberty/md5.c =================================================================== --- libiberty/md5.c (révision 178905) +++ libiberty/md5.c (copie de travail) @@ -227,7 +227,6 @@ md5_process_bytes (const void *buffer, size_t len, /* Process available complete blocks. */ if (len > 64) { -#if !_STRING_ARCH_unaligned /* To check alignment gcc has an appropriate operator. Other compilers don't. */ # if __GNUC__ >= 2 @@ -244,10 +243,11 @@ md5_process_bytes (const void *buffer, size_t len, len -= 64; } else -#endif - md5_process_block (buffer, len & ~63, ctx); - buffer = (const void *) ((const char *) buffer + (len & ~63)); - len &= 63; + { + md5_process_block (buffer, len & ~63, ctx); + buffer = (const void *) ((const char *) buffer + (len & ~63)); + len &= 63; + } } /* Move remaining bytes in internal buffer. */