Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?

• Next message: Hartmut Manz: "allocate more than 2 GB on IA32"
• Previous message: Jens Axboe: "CFQ disk scheduler (was Re: [PATCH] SFQ disk scheduler)"
• In reply to: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?"
• Next in thread: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?"
• Reply: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Horst von Brand <brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:

|> Art Haas <ahaas@airmail.net> said:
|> > I ask because I've just built a kernel without using that flag -
|> > linus-2.5 BK from this morning, probably missing the 2.5.60 release by
|> > a few hours.
|>
|> The problem with strict aliasing is that it allows the compiler to assume
|> that in:
|>
|> void somefunc(int *foo, int *bar)
|>
|> foo and bar will _*never*_ point to the same memory area

This is wrong. Only if they are declared restrict.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Hartmut Manz: "allocate more than 2 GB on IA32"
• Previous message: Jens Axboe: "CFQ disk scheduler (was Re: [PATCH] SFQ disk scheduler)"
• In reply to: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?"
• Next in thread: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?"
• Reply: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:32 EST