X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=gCitxNX7joCH1ibvq3rZW/EIKRmT7aLq79go+X2Qc9I=;
	b=ec8D0zkqAoGnwVGpfJeadBFYyV3lvE7dbxD3yhFhmdoUNWidBFVNbniMUgU4xmkU4P
	nkoWRzKVfy830wmw4WF8302W9opKUXTUYF0aPxpP+zr97m/byn39YyqtS9AaRjzcMrz8
	rIF3RDJTo/J/21sco+G5Z+Pnw7BB2czOe4Vjo=
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
	d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=Rav/iHPvArd9151sl9jSfv5V5+QfooQqYRdT/qa7+iqA7jftpPlaqKW+aGhhVpMkpe
	NFOXpqcyj/4weLFHllTytCVqUc8z01/VeHqEkApufc20HLXzVhH06YDyEFzxLH/GFR44
	Y6fQaKfakEZbdCmQ/ay0sG0oHDo6hsAMliVOE=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4A73E13E.3050700@iki.fi>
References:	<4A73E13E DOT 3050700 AT iki DOT fi>
Date:	Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:47:59 +0300
Message-ID:	<647fe9b10908010147j1cc16f97o7dc9ff609387cc3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: Some patches to DJGPP v2.04 (GCC-4.4.1 related)
From:	Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Andris Pavenis<andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi> wrote:
> At first fighting with strict aliasing violation warnings from emu387.cc
> could be rather big work. Perhaps it is easier to tell GCC not to
> complain. The option -fno-strict-aliasing is available beginning from
> gcc-2.8.0 if I remember correctly. So unless somebody terribly
> wants to build DJGPP v2.04pre with really ancient gcc-2.7.2.1, I guess
> it should be OK to apply the patch. Am I right?
>
> There also was type punning related warning from src/compat/mntent/mntent.c.
> Does the related patch seem OK?
>
> I already applied some other small patches.
>
> After that (+ telling gcc to stay silent about conflicting parameters
> for some builtin functions in libm and using command line option -m32
> for building host tools) all seems to build OK using gcc-4.4.1 under
> Fedora 11 x86_64.
>
> Andris
>

Patches seem OK.  Although you may want to build using
-Wstrict-aliasing=2 before finishing your work, because gcc
seems to hide some of the warnings _and_ may generate
bad code, and in some worse cases may not warn even
with that warning flag and still generate bad code which
happened to me once (that was with gcc-4.5, though..)
My 2 cents.

--
Ozkan

- Raw text -