On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Scott, > > In message <20090728225244.ga8...@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> you > wrote: >> >> The patch title is bad -- it's not disabling warnings, it's >> disabling an >> aspect of C99 that the code is incompatible with (and which is pretty >> questionable in the first place with such low level code). Note >> that in >> Linux, this is disabled for the entire kernel. > > I know. But Linux is bigger than U-Boot, and I think we should be able > to fix the few isolated places that throw such warnings. > >> As things stand, GCC may do bad things with that code. With this >> patch, >> it may not (at least not this particular sort of bad thing). Those >> bad >> things are not limited to the places where it warns -- those are >> just the >> violations it detected. > > Agreed, and that's why I want to see this fixed. > >> Do you have an alternative malloc implementation in mind that is >> designed >> to work with strict aliasing, or a suggested fix to the current one? > > I did not look into this yet - there was some discussion about a > malloc replacement, but it faded away without visible result. > > I cannot do everything myself, but I can oppose changes that are IMO > to the worse.
Do we have any ideas what type of performance we're looking for from malloc? - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot