christos@ wrote:
> On Nov 24, 7:18am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
> | Then you don't have any patch for existing (and not warned) abcksum().
> | Are you also okay to specify -fno-strict-aliasing with the original code
> | as I and mrg (and now Taylor) suggest, rather than patch
On Nov 24, 7:18am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/atari/stand/installboot
| Then you don't have any patch for existing (and not warned) abcksum().
| Are you also okay to specify -fno-strict-aliasing with the original code
| as I and mrg (an
christos@ wrote:
> | Taylor claims the existing abcksum() also violates aliasing rule.
> | http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2014/11/23/msg007402.html
> |
> | If he is correct it's no sense to tweak only functions complained
> | by current gcc48.
>
> Yes, both solutions (your post a
On Nov 24, 4:55am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/atari/stand/installboot
| > Yes, taking this approach to the extreme we should never switch compilers.
|
| Please stop such "extreme or nothing" approach if you cannot maintain it.
Ok, it
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:46:31 +0900
From: Izumi Tsutsui
Christos said "it is legally converting a void * pointer."
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2014/11/16/msg007356.html
You guys have different opinions. Which is correct?
Which C99 specification you think t
christos@ wrote:
> | > -static u_int abcksum(void *);
> | > +static void abcksum(void *);
> |
> | Changing existing functions requires more tests and
> | it's annoying for maintainers, especially for netbsd-7.
>
> Yes, taking this approach to the extreme we should never switch compilers
>I'd like to hear your answer of my dumb question:
>http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2014/11/16/msg007354.html
>
> `Then why don't you guys also complain to fix existing abcksum()
> function which is called at the suggested memcpy?'
>
> I didn't see it before. The existing a
On Nov 24, 4:01am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/atari/stand/installboot
| > -static u_int abcksum(void *);
| > +static voidabcksum(void *);
|
| Changing existing functions requires more tests and
| it's annoying for maintai
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 03:20:27 +0900
From: Izumi Tsutsui
riastradh@ wrote:
> As is, there are obviously violations, but we have papered over them
> enough that GCC isn't smart enough to warn about them: the void * cast
> through abcksum
I'd like to hear your answer of my d
christos@ wrote:
> How about this then,
:
> -static u_int abcksum(void *);
> +static void abcksum(void *);
Changing existing functions requires more tests and
it's annoying for maintainers, especially for netbsd-7.
Please don't assume we have unlimited resources and
remember that we need just
riastradh@ wrote:
> As is, there are obviously violations, but we have papered over them
> enough that GCC isn't smart enough to warn about them: the void * cast
> through abcksum
I'd like to hear your answer of my dumb question:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2014/11/16/msg007354.
On Nov 24, 2:28am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/atari/stand/installboot
| christos@ wrote:
|
| > | http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2014/11/15/msg007338.html
| >
| > I could not have tested; I asked you to test.
|
| I did
christos@ wrote:
> | http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2014/11/15/msg007338.html
>
> I could not have tested; I asked you to test.
I didn't tested it either.
I noticed your obvious wrong pointer calculation by code inspection,
and it means memcpy() would confuse future maintainers "
On Nov 24, 12:06am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/atari/stand/installboot
| One major problem of the NetBSD Project is that we don't have any
| well defined procedure to get majority.
| (we don't have enough activities or a person like Linu
How about we take one of tsutsui@'s earlier suggestions and compile
the code in question with -fno-strict-aliasing, and revert to the
original code, until someone can go over the whole thing to clean up
the strict-aliasing violations? That way, the bad code will work as
originally intended and wil
christos@ wrote:
> Until that stops working, or being available. I think we should
> let the majority decide what's appropriate.
One major problem of the NetBSD Project is that we don't have any
well defined procedure to get majority.
(we don't have enough activities or a person like Linus unfort
16 matches
Mail list logo
