![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In article <20030225234646.GB30611@bougret.hpl.hp.com>, Jean Tourrilhes <jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > It looks like a compiler bug to me... Why do you think the kernel uses "-fno-strict-aliasing"? The gcc people are more interested in trying to find out what can be allowed by the c99 specs than about making things actually _work_. The aliasing code in particular is not even worth enabling, it's just not possible to sanely tell gcc when some things can alias. > Some users have complained that when the following code is >compiled without the -fno-strict-aliasing, the order of the write and >memcpy is inverted (which mean a bogus len is mem-copied into the >stream). The "problem" is that we inline the memcpy(), at which point gcc won't care about the fact that it can alias, so they'll just re-order everything and claim it's out own fault. Even though there is no sane way for us to even tell gcc about it. I tried to get a sane way a few years ago, and the gcc developers really didn't care about the real world in this area. I'd be surprised if that had changed, judging by the replies I have already seen. I'm not going to bother to fight it. Linus - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||