On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:00 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > On Feb 2, 2010, at 13:18, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > > I have not seen any compelling reasons to turn off this optimization. > > Maybe 10 years ago when it was first introduced. I have seen reports of > > large number of warnings, but from older gcc versions. As it is today, > > we are losing some optimization that could be beneficial. > > > > This option has been there for so long (most likely copied along), I > > doubt you will will get a clear answer for each of the 240 xorg modules. > > It would take a few modules to try it out first. > > I see it in libX11 has historically used -fno-strict-aliasing: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/lib/libX11/commit/?id=db7c6fdeeaef9475458498e4cf09d6b1329e9aa3 > > but adding XORG_CWARNFLAGS to XORG_DEFAULT_OPTIONS has caused this to change > for other modules. > > Looking at historic versions of modules, I see it present in: > > libICE > libSM > libX11 > libXau > libXfont > libXft > libXpm > libXres > xorg-server > > of course most of these seem to have just copied the entire GCC_WARNINGS > block and probably didn't actually need -fno-strict-aliasing
Of course. Whatever the reasons were, if anyone remembers, may not apply anymore. Devising a plan for it's removal will not be an easy task. I see 3 options: 1) take it out of macros, 1 patch 2) transfer it to all makefiles and then removing it gradually, that's 2*240 +1 patches 3) override in 'n' makefiles until proven safe. Then take it out macros. That's 2*n +1 patches. I am curious how you can about this.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list xorg-devel@lists.x.org http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
