-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roman Divacky wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 09:52:38AM -0400, Michael Butler wrote: >> Does the shift to c99/gnu99 mode change the behaviour of the compiler >> such that this is unnecessary or should I be "on the lookout" for >> obscure failures? ;-) > > are you referring to my recent commit? that affected world only. kernel > has been building with c99 for.. a long time :) In part, yes. > what was your question again? The 'no-strict-aliasing' parameter was added for a reason (which I can no longer recall :-() so I was curious if I should be looking for related regressions now that it has been removed. That is: 1) if the breakage that prompted its addition has since been resolved to now permit its absence? .. or .. 2) if the c99/gnu99 mode incorporates a re-interpretation (by gcc) of aliasing methods so this parameter is no longer required? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkm9HoUACgkQQv9rrgRC1JKvmwCfTJ9tplb7gHDXaztQCv/cCC/N Ce4AoJZ9bZStE9TaYsp8a2b31xfRPZHy =8dhG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Received on Sun Mar 15 2009 - 14:28:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:44 UTC