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=DNEVX8t1waDVCAJpHKXuSu6Dblij2ixyliFN+PTrrY8=;
	b=t28QyTfpaWOC/ZKbzJpqem/rrb6dqzYJo+SrGerpAaJ1hxRjYdNX9z8511hQ7GxYpY
	ocMU2g3hQADAC32ShkfbVH+Sj6qhd3ga8QT79DI02Z68kYXkdbGnE2nZt2ToZW9q3i6F
	xjjZsHkdSZWFmMBc79FQlybt6MkIxsJBkv2mE=
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=s90yhjGBbmDVYAphtmkhUfuVfb2If1AitAB2fL5pCQ9fqxkm1GudvH2AIo63VTDuzT
	0fRB++iZWiDQtMosb9u3PDZ1XCn80tYTRN/MQyuK6cNcr//tMhXGa7au0anrfFFFn1XC
	AUW/T3xYWiBEayr02EI7SuM+rtbihvv8E2cb8=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<83k51nq2cd.fsf@gnu.org>
References:	<4A73E13E DOT 3050700 AT iki DOT fi>
	<647fe9b10908010147j1cc16f97o7dc9ff609387cc3 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83k51nq2cd DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Date:	Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:10:13 +0300
Message-ID:	<647fe9b10908010310of9d1a72k46c228264ead30de@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 1:02 PM, Eli Zaretskii<eliz AT gnu DOT org> wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:47:59 +0300
>> From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
>>
>> 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..)
>
> Details, please: how can a warning option cause bad code generation?
>

Miscommunication, I think: What I suggest is that one
shouldn't rely plainly on -Wall to see strict aliasing
warnings, but also use -Wstrict-aliasing=2 to see if
there are more. If you miss those warnings, you _may_
(or may not) end up having bad binaries. Besides,
in some cases, even -Wstrict-aliasing=2 doesn't
report the aliasing violations and gcc can silently
generate bad code.  I hope this was clear enough.

- Raw text -