Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Even without the extra overhead, the danger of strict-aliasing is not just
> > related to alignment.
> If I understand the issue at all, it has *nothing* to do with alignment.
> > As I understand it, given strict-aliasing assumptions
> > the compiler is free to reorder some operations on things it thinks can't be
> > the same thing, or even optimise them away because they can have no effect.
> Yah...
> > I'm not 100% sure we have avoided that danger.
> I don't think we understand the dangers quite yet, and I think the
> patches applied to date constitute useless thrashing rather than fixes.
> I'd like to see less quick-hack patching and more discussion.
> In particular, given that there is as yet no demonstrated effect other
> than mere warnings issued by a possibly-buggy gcc release, I think it's
> premature to be hacking our sources at all.

OK, patch removed.  When no one commented after 24 hours on my
makeNode() idea, I though I was on to something.  :-(

In reading and the
link it references,, they seem
to be talking about any pointer casting.

It also has this gem:

        I have seen some commits that "fix" gcc 3.3 alias warnings, that does
        not give me warm fuzzy feelings (the commits that is), and I have alse
        seen a lot of confusion about aliasing (and ISO C in general) on
        different mailing lists, so I have tried to explain some of the issues
        that I know have/will bite us.

indicating they might remove these warnings soon anyway.

I am not even going to point this gcc issue on the 7.4 open items list.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to