splinkersets01 test assumptions

[Sebastian Huber]

On 17/02/2021 16:32, Kinsey Moore wrote:
>>           .section        .rtemsroset.s.begin,"a"
>>           .align  8
>>           .type   _Linker_set_s_begin, %object
>>           .size   _Linker_set_s_begin, 0
>> _Linker_set_s_begin:
>>           .section        .rtemsroset.s.end,"a"
>>           .align  8
>>           .type   _Linker_set_s_end, %object
>>           .size   _Linker_set_s_end, 0
>> _Linker_set_s_end:
>>           .ident  "GCC: (GNU) 10.2.1 20210205 (RTEMS 6, RSB
>> 61dcadee0825867ebe51f9f367430ef75b8fe9c0, Newlib d4a756f)"
>>> <snip>
>>>
>> I would remove the SUBALIGN() from the linker script. You can also add a
>> new test case for splinkersets01 similar to struct s from above. Then we
>> should check if the test fails on aarch64 and why it fails.
> The example above actually shows the issue I'm having in _Linker_set_i_begin and _Linker_set_i_end. The alignment expands for the larger struct, but does not shrink for data types smaller than 8 bytes, leaving padding that the test interprets as additional space in the linker set.
I still don't see why a larger alignment is an issue. The begin/end 
objects have a size of zero. Where do you observe a padding?

-- 
embedded brains GmbH
Herr Sebastian HUBER
Dornierstr. 4
82178 Puchheim
Germany
email: sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16
fax:   +49-89-18 94 741 - 08

Registergericht: Amtsgericht München
Registernummer: HRB 157899
Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler
Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier:
https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/