From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Nov 11  6:30:34 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E5B37B401
	for <FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 06:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4846743E42
	for <FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 06:30:32 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu)
Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30])
	by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03312;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:30:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from gallatin@localhost)
	by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id gABEU1K47896;
	Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:30:01 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu)
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15823.48873.236346.943980@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:30:01 -0500 (EST)
To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de>
Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 optimization bug ?
In-Reply-To: <20021111135051.H11404-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
References: <ywlvg34jn21.fsf@cerberus.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
	<20021111135051.H11404-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


Harti Brandt writes:
 > On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, TOMITA Yoshinori wrote:
 > 
 > This is probably not a bug, but a feature. You are not expected to access
 > a variable through a pointer to a non-compatible type. int and short are
 > not compatible. (see your ISO C standard on this topic).
 > 
 > Try to use ntohl(), htonl() for your problem.
 > 

On a similar theme, I assume the following is also not safe:

static __inline u_int64_t
__bswap64 (u_int64_t x)
{
  u_int64_t ret;
  u_int32_t *x_ptr, *ret_ptr;

  x_ptr = (u_int32_t *)&x;
  ret_ptr = (u_int32_ *)&ret;
  ret_ptr[0] = __bswap32 (x_ptr[1]);
  ret_ptr[1] = __bswap32 (x_ptr[0]);

  return ret;
}


But does using a union make it safe?

static __inline u_int64_t
__bswap64 (u_int64_t x)
{
  union
  {
    u_int64_t u64;
    u_int32_t u32[2];
  }
  ret, old;

  old.u64 = x;
  ret.u32[0] = __bswap32 (old.u32[1]);
  ret.u32[1] = __bswap32 (old.u32[0]);
  return ret.u64;
}


FWIW, both *seem* to work correctly using gcc version 3.2.1 and high
optimization. 

Thanks,

Drew

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message