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 have
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
Evolution
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 it encountered
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 use it
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.
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, -Wall
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
