Tom Lane wrote: > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Even without the extra overhead, the danger of strict-aliasing is not just > > related to alignment. > > If I understand the issue at all, it has *nothing* to do with alignment. > > > As I understand it, given strict-aliasing assumptions > > the compiler is free to reorder some operations on things it thinks can't be > > the same thing, or even optimise them away because they can have no effect. > > Yah... > > > I'm not 100% sure we have avoided that danger. > > I don't think we understand the dangers quite yet, and I think the > patches applied to date constitute useless thrashing rather than fixes. > I'd like to see less quick-hack patching and more discussion. > > In particular, given that there is as yet no demonstrated effect other > than mere warnings issued by a possibly-buggy gcc release, I think it's > premature to be hacking our sources at all.
OK, patch removed. When no one commented after 24 hours on my makeNode() idea, I though I was on to something. :-( In reading http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html#nonbugs_c and the link it references, http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2003/08/11/0001.html, they seem to be talking about any pointer casting. It also has this gem: I have seen some commits that "fix" gcc 3.3 alias warnings, that does not give me warm fuzzy feelings (the commits that is), and I have alse seen a lot of confusion about aliasing (and ISO C in general) on different mailing lists, so I have tried to explain some of the issues that I know have/will bite us. indicating they might remove these warnings soon anyway. I am not even going to point this gcc issue on the 7.4 open items list. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
