I don't think that a firing squad will materialize over this change,
but if one does, I'll quell them for you.
LGTM in principle (but I haven't seen the actual change).
Mark
Craig Schlenter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Craig Schlenter
>> <craig.schlen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm one try-server run away from possibly turning -fno-strict-aliasing on
>>> for
>>> all linux/bsd gcc: http://codereview.chromium.org/519034
>>>
>>> From a "process" standpoint, given that there is some disagreement here
>>> is someone going to come find me with a clue bat if I commit this?
>>
>> I don't think anyone will be rabid :)
>> That said, my comment in my prior email stands: if we're basically capable
>> of throwing -fstrict-aliasing for first-party code now, what do we gain by
>> instead throwing -fno-strict-aliasing? I would be sad to see us do this
>> unless it really buys us something.
>
> Other than the immediate gain of "hiding" crbug.com/28749, I think the biggest
> benefit is that end users relying on 4.4 builds are likely to have a more
> stable
> experience in future since it is a safe default. The PPA ubuntu builds
> from fta are
> already running with no_strict_aliasing=1 btw.
>
> The other thing it buys us is a more relaxed timetable to solve the aliasing
> problems if it doesn't break the tree by default.
>
> Anyway, I think I'll commit this and then go hide somewhere :)
>
> --Craig
>
> --
> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
>
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
