On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:13:19AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
> > > > just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
> > >
> > > True. (These "break strict aliasing rules" warnings however are harmless
> > > according to Yosh.)
> > Just a sidenote, unless caused by a bug in the compiler, these warnings
> > are never harmless. They might not cause problems with current gcc,
> > but there is no guarentee that the code will do as expected with other
> > compilers or future versions of gcc, unless one uses -fno-strict-aliasing,
> > which can be a major performance problem in some cases.
> Well, the bulk of the code in gimp that causes warnings is stuff like:
> void foo (void **p);
> void bar (void)
> int *i;
> foo ((void **) &i);
does this count the things that you cannot do? it would be very silly
to tie a process up with this sort of thing. this list is infinite.
> While it does break the letter of the law wrt aliasing rules, are there any
> assumptions that the compiler can legally make that would cause problems?
does gcc do this? count up things that it is not allowed to do? will
the compiler need to be rewritten?
Gimp-developer mailing list