From Paul Mundt <[email protected]>: add SuperH to the list of CPUs

where we wire in the idea that it can't handle unaligned accesses.  (I
don't know why the test program doesn't work - but perhaps the test
program is the wrong answer anyway, as it doesn't work when
cross-compiling.)

diff --git a/CREDITS b/CREDITS
index d249cc601bb1c1876ee85113d17abfea46ea9d6c..03ea4cd4826676fcfe78025b0f2b62c9a58ffd93 100644 (file)
--- a/CREDITS
+++ b/CREDITS
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ Additional people who have contributed patches:
        Octavian Cerna                  <[email protected]>
        Olaf Kirch                      <[email protected]>
        Onno van der Linden             <[email protected]>
+       Paul Mundt                      <[email protected]>
        Pavel Kankovsky                 <[email protected]>
        Peter Fales                     <[email protected]>
        Peter Jeremy                    <[email protected]>

diff --git a/aclocal.m4 b/aclocal.m4
index f5924e447a5f11e794b1f99f95fb562a3f867b82..3b8350c710e7806fe69aefc063092ecef702bb2b 100644 (file)
--- a/aclocal.m4
+++ b/aclocal.m4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-dnl @(#) $Header: /tcpdump/master/libpcap/aclocal.m4,v 1.80 2002-07-27 18:45:34 guy Exp $ (LBL)
+dnl @(#) $Header: /tcpdump/master/libpcap/aclocal.m4,v 1.81 2003-03-28 08:28:26 guy Exp $ (LBL)
 dnl
 dnl Copyright (c) 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998
 dnl    The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
@@ -589,8 +589,39 @@ AC_DEFUN(AC_LBL_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
     AC_CACHE_VAL(ac_cv_lbl_unaligned_fail,
        [case "$host_cpu" in
 
+       #
+       # These are CPU types where:
+       #
+       #       the CPU faults on an unaligned access, but at least some
+       #       OSes that support that CPU catch the fault and simulate
+       #       the unaligned access (e.g., Alpha/{Digital,Tru64} UNIX) -
+       #       the simulation is slow, so we don't want to use it;
+       #
+       #       the CPU, I infer (from the old
+       #
        # XXX: should also check that they don't do weird things (like on arm)
-       alpha*|arm*|hp*|mips*|sparc*|ia64)
+       #
+       #       comment) doesn't fault on unaligned accesses, but doesn't
+       #       do a normal unaligned fetch, either (e.g., presumably, ARM);
+       #
+       #       for whatever reason, the test program doesn't work
+       #       (this has been claimed to be the case for several of those
+       #       CPUs - I don't know what the problem is; the problem
+       #       was reported as "the test program dumps core" for SuperH,
+       #       but that's what the test program is *supposed* to do -
+       #       it dumps core before it writes anything, so the test
+       #       for an empty output file should find an empty output
+       #       file and conclude that unaligned accesses don't work).
+       #
+       # This run-time test won't work if you're cross-compiling, so
+       # in order to support cross-compiling for a particular CPU,
+       # we have to wire in the list of CPU types anyway, as far as
+       # I know, so perhaps we should just have a set of CPUs on
+       # which we know it doesn't work, a set of CPUs on which we
+       # know it does work, and have the script just fail on other
+       # cpu types and update it when such a failure occurs.
+       #
+       alpha*|arm*|hp*|mips*|sh*|sparc*|ia64)
                ac_cv_lbl_unaligned_fail=yes
                ;;
 

diff --git a/configure b/configure
index 3decc81841a16728930b60b34482e1885ca6946a..eb6ed91feda6644b499688846ccf429648a5dfcd 100755 (executable)
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -2364,8 +2364,39 @@ echo "configure:2362: checking if unaligned accesses fail" >&5
 else
   case "$host_cpu" in
 
+       #
+       # These are CPU types where:
+       #
+       #       the CPU faults on an unaligned access, but at least some
+       #       OSes that support that CPU catch the fault and simulate
+       #       the unaligned access (e.g., Alpha/{Digital,Tru64} UNIX) -
+       #       the simulation is slow, so we don't want to use it;
+       #
+       #       the CPU, I infer (from the old
+       #
        # XXX: should also check that they don't do weird things (like on arm)
-       alpha*|arm*|hp*|mips*|sparc*|ia64)
+       #
+       #       comment) doesn't fault on unaligned accesses, but doesn't
+       #       do a normal unaligned fetch, either (e.g., presumably, ARM);
+       #
+       #       for whatever reason, the test program doesn't work
+       #       (this has been claimed to be the case for several of those
+       #       CPUs - I don't know what the problem is; the problem
+       #       was reported as "the test program dumps core" for SuperH,
+       #       but that's what the test program is *supposed* to do -
+       #       it dumps core before it writes anything, so the test
+       #       for an empty output file should find an empty output
+       #       file and conclude that unaligned accesses don't work).
+       #
+       # This run-time test won't work if you're cross-compiling, so
+       # in order to support cross-compiling for a particular CPU,
+       # we have to wire in the list of CPU types anyway, as far as
+       # I know, so perhaps we should just have a set of CPUs on
+       # which we know it doesn't work, a set of CPUs on which we
+       # know it does work, and have the script just fail on other
+       # cpu types and update it when such a failure occurs.
+       #
+       alpha*|arm*|hp*|mips*|sh*|sparc*|ia64)
                ac_cv_lbl_unaligned_fail=yes
                ;;
 
@@ -2444,7 +2475,7 @@ ln -s ${srcdir}/bpf/net net
 # SVR4 /usr/ucb/install, which tries to use the nonexistent group "staff"
 # ./install, which can be erroneously created by make from ./install.sh.
 echo $ac_n "checking for a BSD compatible install""... $ac_c" 1>&6
-echo "configure:2448: checking for a BSD compatible install" >&5
+echo "configure:2479: checking for a BSD compatible install" >&5
 if test -z "$INSTALL"; then
 if eval "test \"`echo '$''{'ac_cv_path_install'+set}'`\" = set"; then
   echo $ac_n "(cached) $ac_c" 1>&6