On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:35:50 +0200
"Damian Wrobel" wrote:
> Based on my experience, It's usually better to see this warning and
> fix the code instead of relying on the back magic.
Yes, but in the case of the strict aliasing stuff and function pointer
stuff, we really, really, *can't* not rely o
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:49:27 +0200 Seebs wrote
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:49:03 +0200
> "Damian Wrobel" wrote:
>
> > -# no-strict-aliasing is needed for the function pointer trickery.
> > pseudo_wrappers.o: $(GUTS) pseudo_wrappers.c pseudo_wrapfuncs.c
> > pseudo_wrapfuncs.h ps
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:49:03 +0200
"Damian Wrobel" wrote:
> -# no-strict-aliasing is needed for the function pointer trickery.
> pseudo_wrappers.o: $(GUTS) pseudo_wrappers.c pseudo_wrapfuncs.c
> pseudo_wrapfuncs.h pseudo_tables.h
> - $(CC) -fno-strict-aliasing $(CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS_PSEUDO)
> -D
They seems to be no longer needed. Tested on:
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 11.1.1 20210531 (Red Hat 11.1.1-3)
Signed-off-by: Damian Wrobel
---
Makefile.in | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile.in b/Makefile.in
index 10441ef..1ad8836 100644
--- a/Makefi
