On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:13:19AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig <Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
> > > just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
> >
> > True. (These "break strict aliasing rules" warnings however are harmless
> > according to Yosh.)
>
> Just a sidenote, unless caused by a bug in the compiler, these warnings
> are never harmless. They might not cause problems with current gcc,
> but there is no guarentee that the code will do as expected with other
> compilers or future versions of gcc, unless one uses -fno-strict-aliasing,
> which can be a major performance problem in some cases.
Well, the bulk of the code in gimp that causes warnings is stuff like:
void foo (void **p);
void bar (void)
{
int *i;
foo ((void **) &i);
}
While it does break the letter of the law wrt aliasing rules, are there any
assumptions that the compiler can legally make that would cause problems?
-Yosh
