Am 30.11.2013 14:56, schrieb Konstantin Belousov:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow
to the kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for
exact change proposed.
What does it do. It disallows useless and counter-intuitive
behaviour of the
On 12/19/13, Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 14:56, schrieb Konstantin Belousov:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow
to the kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for
exact change proposed.
What does it do. It disallows
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:16:16AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 14:56, schrieb Konstantin Belousov:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow
to the kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for
exact change proposed.
What does it do.
Konstantin Belousov wrote, On 11/30/2013 13:56:
The compiler authors take the undefined part there as a blanket to perform
optimizations which are assuming that signed overflow cannot happen.
Personally, when I first heard about such assumptions, it was inspiring to
write code in a way that
On 01 Dec 2013, at 01:33, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 30 November 2013 15:25, Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org wrote:
...
Basically, if you rely on undefined behavior, you are inventing your own
de facto language, which is *not* C. That is fine with me, but let's
not pretend the
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow to the
kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for exact change
proposed.
What does it do. It disallows useless and counter-intuitive behaviour of
the compiler(s) for the signed overflow. Basically, the issue is
+1, this caught us out with sendfile testing very recently :(
-a
On 30 November 2013 05:56, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow to the
kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for exact change
In message caj-vmomc6cmuo__etm7x6w8hpg8mafl2stepdsz4jn0xn6m...@mail.gmail.com
, Adrian Chadd writes:
The compiler authors take the undefined part there as a blanket to perform
optimizations which are assuming that signed overflow cannot happen.
That's sufficient explanation for me to support
On 30 Nov 2013, at 14:56, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow to the
kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for exact change
proposed.
What does it do. It disallows useless and counter-intuitive
On 30 November 2013 15:25, Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 30 Nov 2013, at 14:56, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow to the
kernel compilation. See the patch at the end of message for exact change
Adrian Chadd wrote, On 12/01/2013 01:33:
Are you able to have clang/llvm/gcc tell us where/when code is relying
on undefined behaviour? So we can, like, fix them?
Well, there's -ftrapv.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
[..]
Are you able to have clang/llvm/gcc tell us where/when code is relying
on undefined behaviour? So we can, like, fix them?
It wasn't all that long ago that we had this wonderful thing called
-Werror and had a clean
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
[..]
Are you able to have clang/llvm/gcc tell us where/when code is relying
on undefined behaviour? So we can, like, fix them?
It wasn't all that long
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
[..]
Are you able to have clang/llvm/gcc tell us where/when code is relying
on
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 04:33:17PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 30 November 2013 15:25, Dimitry Andric d...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 30 Nov 2013, at 14:56, Konstantin Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose to unconditionally add the switch -fno-strict-overflow to the
kernel
15 matches
Mail list logo
