Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric Botcazou wrote on 03/05/07 15:59: > >> Then it should also be disabled by default also in 4.1.3 and should > >> have been disabled in 4.1.2 which was only released last month so > >> there is no reason why it has to be disabled in 4.2.0 if everyone is > >> using 4.1 anyways. > > > > VRP has become more aggressive in 4.2.x than in 4.1.x though. > > Agreed. I don't see the need to backport this functionality to 4.1. It > has been out for quite some time now, used in various distros and we > have not been flooded with requests from users. > > While this represents a new feature in 4.2, I don't think it's too > risky. Whatever failures are triggered should be easy to identify and fix.
I gather you are saying here that it is OK with you to backport -fstrict-overflow/-Wstrict-overflow to 4.2. > I personally don't like this feature very much as it may represent a > slippery slope into forcing us to warn in every optimization that > exploits undefined aspects of the standard. But user pressure obviously > exists, so *shrug*. Yes, the overflow case, and the strict aliasing case, is clearly a problem with real existing code, and is a problem for real users. Ian
