On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:20 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > I don't know ... Jeff's demonstration was using obviously wrong C code,
> > so I'm on GCC side for that one.
> >
>
> It's only wrong if you are targeting c99 (evolution was written to
> target c89 - that may h
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 15:21 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 15:00 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:30 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > If you want to get warnings about the aliasing stuff, it seems that
> > > -Wstrict-aliasing=2 is the one you want.
> >
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 15:00 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:30 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > If you want to get warnings about the aliasing stuff, it seems that
> > -Wstrict-aliasing=2 is the one you want.
>
> Yep, as Jeff points out GCC does provide warnings; in fact, -Wa
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:30 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Matthew Barnes wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:27 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, I agree with you that if Evo makes use of this type of aliasing
> >> then we should definitely add that flag to the default makefile flags.
Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:27 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I agree with you that if Evo makes use of this type of aliasing
>> then we should definitely add that flag to the default makefile flags.
>> Configure can check for it and use it if present.
>>
>
> Don
Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 18:13 +, Matthew Barnes wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:27 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, I agree with you that if Evo makes use of this type of aliasing
>>> then we should definitely add that flag to the default makefile flags.
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 18:13 +, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:27 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> > Anyway, I agree with you that if Evo makes use of this type of aliasing
> > then we should definitely add that flag to the default makefile flags.
> > Configure can check for it and u
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 12:27 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> Anyway, I agree with you that if Evo makes use of this type of aliasing
> then we should definitely add that flag to the default makefile flags.
> Configure can check for it and use it if present.
Done. Although, I imagine many distros have a
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:05 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 11:52 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> >
> >> This weekend I discovered a particularly nasty bug in gcc 4.4 where gcc
> >> would mistakenly optimize out important sections of code
> >> when i
Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 11:52 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
>
>> This weekend I discovered a particularly nasty bug in gcc 4.4 where gcc
>> would mistakenly optimize out important sections of code
>> when it encountered a particular trick used in a ton of places inside
>> Evol
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 11:52 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> This weekend I discovered a particularly nasty bug in gcc 4.4 where gcc
> would mistakenly optimize out important sections of code
> when it encountered a particular trick used in a ton of places inside
> Evolution (EDList and pretty much
Le 1 févr. 2010 à 17:52, Jeffrey Stedfast a écrit :
>
> This weekend I discovered a particularly nasty bug in gcc 4.4 where gcc
> would mistakenly optimize out important sections of code
> when it encountered a particular trick used in a ton of places inside
> Evolution (EDList and pretty much e
This weekend I discovered a particularly nasty bug in gcc 4.4 where gcc
would mistakenly optimize out important sections of code
when it encountered a particular trick used in a ton of places inside
Evolution (EDList and pretty much everywhere custom single-linked lists
are used inside at least Cam
13 matches
Mail list logo
