Strict aliasing and chains revisited

[Chris Johns]

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
>
> http://www.rtems.com/ml/rtems-users/2006/november/msg00096.html
>
> 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
>
> https://www.rtems.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1711
>
> 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 ?
>>
>> Chris
>
> 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.

Chris