On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:33:39PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:39:41PM +0100, com...@gmx.ch com...@gmx.ch
wrote:
(the iso c documents ae not that hard to read, though, imho, with the
exception of structure member aliasing).
Therefore I'd be glad to get more
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel Kerneis kern...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:33:39PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
Well, it's not fundamentally complicated.
It was pretty enlightning for me, many thanks.
Same here, actually one of the most interesting threads ever on
Hi,
Marc Lehmann wrote:
If you are unclear on what aliasing itself means, I can write a short
paragraph to explain...
(the iso c documents ae not that hard to read, though, imho, with the
exception of structure member aliasing).
I've had the same discussion before, but just pulled my claim
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:39:41PM +0100, com...@gmx.ch com...@gmx.ch wrote:
(the iso c documents ae not that hard to read, though, imho, with the
exception of structure member aliasing).
Therefore I'd be glad to get more information on the topic.
Thanks for the offer.
Well, it's not
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 16:01, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 07:14:28PM +0100, Alejandro Mery am...@geeks.cl
wrote:
ok, simple test case. (yes, it's only warnings, but they distract a
LOT)
Really, this has nothing to do with libev - you found a buggy warning
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:56:24AM +0100, Alejandro Mery am...@geeks.cl wrote:
what compiler are you using? because gcc produces these warnings with
every version since libev got born.
gcc, and this is not true.
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 16:11, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:56:24AM +0100, Alejandro Mery am...@geeks.cl
wrote:
what compiler are you using? because gcc produces these warnings with
every version since libev got born.
gcc, and this is not true.
so my
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:33:38PM +0100, Alejandro Mery am...@geeks.cl wrote:
gcc, and this is not true.
so my sample code compiled for -O2 or higher or -Os doesn't dump the
warning fest with your gcc version?
Not with those options at least.
Keep in mind that these warnings apply to YOUR
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 09:41:35AM -0600, Brandon Black blbl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've seen this strict-aliasing issues with libev + gcc 4.4 as well. I
You say to have seen strict aliasing issues, but none have been reported
so far.
Care to actually come up with the issues you have or think to
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:20:26PM +0100, Zsbán Ambrus amb...@math.bme.hu
wrote:
elements that way. The compiler warns about that because the C
standard doesn't guarantee that the rest of the elements of the struct
doesn't change how the first elements are laid out in the struct, but
To the
On 02/20/2010 04:06 PM, Marc Lehmann wrote:
Making things up doesn't make them true - do you really think this will
help your credibility?
This and other compiler bugs have been discussed in the past and are even
discussed to some extent in the documentation. Why you think you need to
bring
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 07:14:28PM +0100, Alejandro Mery am...@geeks.cl wrote:
ok, simple test case. (yes, it's only warnings, but they distract a
LOT)
Really, this has nothing to do with libev - you found a buggy warning in your
compiler, report this against your compiler, or switch it off.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Brandon Black blbl...@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen this strict-aliasing issues with libev + gcc 4.4 as well. I
haven't bothered to report it yet simply because I haven't had the
time to sort out exactly what's going on, and whether it's a real
issue that needs
I did look at those strict aliasing warnings a while back. It seemed
to me that they're not bugs.
They're caused by the header declaring structures (specifically ev_*
and ev_watcher) that start with some common elements, casting a
pointer to one to a pointer top the other, and accessing the
On 19/02/10 18:22, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:12:45PM +0600, Denis F. Latypoffde...@gostats.ru
wrote:
Just found yet another potentially broken strict aliasing rules in
ev.c
same here, this is at best a nop and at worst a dangerous patch. it has no
effect on any
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 06:26:49PM +0100, Alejandro Mery am...@geeks.cl wrote:
what's the danger? why do you insist in refusing this?
a compiler might well find an aliasing issue with the existing code, but
unlikely with the patch.
at best they reduce tons of warnings without affecting the
Hi again,
On 19/02/10 18:39, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 06:26:49PM +0100, Alejandro Meryam...@geeks.cl wrote:
what's the danger? why do you insist in refusing this?
a compiler might well find an aliasing issue with the existing code, but
unlikely with the patch.
at best
On 02/19/2010 06:39 PM, Marc Lehmann wrote:
what's wrong with the warnings?
good question, I don't get any warnings, and libev doesn't generate them.
so you need to identify where the warnings originate (e..g in your
compiler) and then ask this question to those people who actually control
18 matches
Mail list logo
