On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 08:01 -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:11:06 -0500, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My next task is to add warning flags to those modules who don't. If we > > wish to preserve status quo (for aliasing), I can define a new variable, > > leaving CWARNFLAGS intact so older versions of modules configured > > against newer versions of macros aren't affected. > > (thanks for the review, btw). > > I don't think -fno-strict-aliasing belongs in the same set as other
I am glad you agree, That is what all the patches I have been doing were about. Taking it out of XORG_CWARNFLAGS while not changing existing behaviour. > warning flags; it's more like a set of options to have the compiler > match the language that the code was originally written in. > This concept you describe is currently missing. This role was imposed on xorg_cwarnflags because it was the oly one that was (presumably) included by all modules. Hence the confusion between the name and the role. I have come to realize that we can't change xorg_cwarnflags so today's version of xserver and libs continue to behave the same way when configured against future versions of util-macros. What we can do is create a new macro that implements the concept you describe and gradually replace cwarnflags in the modules as wee fit. <some-clever-name>_CFLAGS Can we assume that all modules who did not have -fno-strict-aliasing before Jan 2009 have been working correctly and do not need it? That gave about 4 years to detect any problems. I am not sure what's the set of modules you have in mind that should have -fno-strict-aliasing. I am available to write as many patches as it takes to do the right thing. Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
