> 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 abcksum violates strict-aliasing > too. That's why I suggested taking your suggestion of falling back to > -fno-strict-aliasing until someone is willing to turn it back on and > go through all the code to make it safe, or rototill the whole thing > into MI installboot.
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 the existing abcksum violates? --- Izumi Tsutsui