2010/2/3 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 10:15 +0000, Colin Harrison wrote: >> >> Michel Dänzer wrote: >> >> > Traditionally, -fno-strict-aliasing was definitely necessary for the X >> > server and/or some drivers to work correctly. >> >> Strict aliasing used to be a can'o worms... >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/2/26/158 >> >> and last time I tried strict aliasing for Xming (many moons ago) I fell flat >> on my face. >> >> But is series 4 gcc now much better? > > Problems with strict aliasing are usually due to strict aliasing > violations in the code being compiled, not bugs in the compiler. So > newer compilers can't really help (in fact the opposite may be true, as > I think newer versions of gcc tend to obey strict aliasing even more > strictly), the only help would be fixing the code bugs. I'm sure some of > them have been fixed...
Here's an example of newer gcc changing behavior with strict aliasing that I just happened to see the other day. http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2010/01/weird-bugs-due-to-gcc-44-and-strict.html -- Dan _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
