On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:
> 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);
> }
>
does this count the things that you cannot do? it would be very silly
to tie a process up with this sort of thing. this list is infinite.
> 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?
>
does gcc do this? count up things that it is not allowed to do? will
the compiler need to be rewritten?
carol
