On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 07:47 +0200, 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.
Personally I feel this optimization to be in the "luxury" category. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble in a project like u-boot. Maybe it should be default off and only turned on for specific modules. like checksum and compression stuff. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
