> On 4 Feb 2023, at 22:03, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > On 2023-02-04 12:23, Sam James wrote: >> I guess it's hard for me to say given I don't know what options allowed it >> to be reproduced and I couldn't hit it. >> I assumed it must have been -Wstrict-aliasing=2 or lower which makes it more >> aggressive at the risk of false positives. >> But if you reproduced it, then it's useful, I suppose. > > I didn't reproduce the warning, since I lack GCC "13.1". I merely looked at > the Gnulib source and noticed a couple of places where it was not conforming > to the C standard. I have enough knowledge of GCC internals that I think > I've changed the code so that it will pacify GCC "13.1". > > Although the updated code still doesn't conform, it should work fine on real > platforms. (The old code probably works too, for what it's worth.)
Alright, thanks for explaining - I follow now, cheers. Maybe we'll get more information from the original reporter too.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP