From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Joe Buck Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), craig@jcb-sc.com, mark@codesourcery.com, davem@redhat.com, chip@perlsupport.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Linux and aliasing? Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:22:00 -0000 Message-id: <18345.928516624@upchuck.cygnus.com> References: <199906041700.KAA19279@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-06/msg00154.html > Either > 1. Leave it as it is (the Linux kernel will need -fno-strict-aliasing). This is my strong preference. I see no need to make conforming, portable code run slower. Lots of folks have already fixed these problems in their code (in large part because vendor compilers started doing this kind of alias analysis years ago). Folks working with non-portable code can use -fno-strict-aliasing and pay the resulting performance penalty. jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: Joe Buck Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), craig@jcb-sc.com, mark@codesourcery.com, davem@redhat.com, chip@perlsupport.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Linux and aliasing? Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <18345.928516624@upchuck.cygnus.com> References: <199906041700.KAA19279@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-06n/msg00154.html Message-ID: <19990630154300.KS9elqbq4SgLmRScNVCxBVvioESQwXMvKxWnQoJIdI4@z> > Either > 1. Leave it as it is (the Linux kernel will need -fno-strict-aliasing). This is my strong preference. I see no need to make conforming, portable code run slower. Lots of folks have already fixed these problems in their code (in large part because vendor compilers started doing this kind of alias analysis years ago). Folks working with non-portable code can use -fno-strict-aliasing and pay the resulting performance penalty. jeff