Strict aliasing and chains revisited
chrisj at rtems.org
Wed Oct 27 00:10:47 UTC 2010
On 25/10/10 11:49 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 07:15 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> Why the packed attribute ?
> In the thread from 2006
> some said that this my be necessary on some architectures to guarantee the
> overlapping. I am not sure about this. We may omit the packed attribute and
> see what the test suites say.
I would rather we see a reason, discuss it and then decide what happens.
Adding packed to anything makes it become very difficult to remove and
know nothing breaks.
> You may have a look at
> It should be quite similar to your fixes. Can you please check in what you prefer?
Thanks, I will take a look.
>> Also is 4.10 ok ?
> Maybe we should discard the 4.10 branch and use the current CVS head as a new
> 4.10 branch starting point after these changes. My feeling is that the current
> CVS head is pretty stable.
We should not remove branches like this. There are users with 4.10 in
advanced testing. It looks like this is going to be a 4.11+ change.
More information about the users