Date: 11 Dec 2003 13:20:10 -0000 From: andy@splashground.de To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: buildworld doesn't like -O2 Message-ID: <20031211132010.2491.qmail@paladin.fortunaty.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpptevecd4.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20031210204642.27989.qmail@paladin.fortunaty.net>,<xzpptevecd4.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
des wrote @ Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:02:31 +0100: > Andreas Hauser <andy-freebsd@splashground.de> writes: > > There is a qr about it > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=55774 > > but it was closed by DES saying "Not a problem report". > > I don't understand why [...] > > Quoting from src/share/examples/etc/make.conf: > > # CFLAGS controls the compiler settings used when compiling C code. > # Note that optimization settings above -O (-O2, ...) are not recommended > # or supported for compiling the world or the kernel - please revert any > # nonstandard optimization settings to "-O" before submitting bug reports > # to the developers. > > Even if that weren't the case, PRs about a broken build are generally > not welcome. We have mailing lists for that. I know that and i also understand that brocken optimization levels of GCC have led to a lot of false reports. But with the newer GCC versions much has improved. And in this case, as far as i can see, the code does violate the strict aliasing rules. const char *rhost; ... (const void **)&rhost ... You only have (bad) luck that with less optimizations the compiler doesn't warn about it. Or is that a wrong representation? Andy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031211132010.2491.qmail>