<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:34 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 11:11 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > On Feb 23, 2010, at 11:07, Keith Packard wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:37:18 -0500, Gaetan Nadon > > <<A HREF="mailto:memsize@videotron.ca">memsize@videotron.ca</A>> wrote: > > > >> This patch will ensure the xserver continues to suppress the > >> optimization, based on strict aliasing rules, after the option > >> is removed from $CWARNFLAGS. There is no change in the object > >> code produced. > > > > I don't think we need to allow any of the code in the X server to be > > 'optimized' in this fashion, so I don't see a need to allow for > > per-directory selection. > > It would be helpful if I had the option to remove this flag from > XQuartz. Out of curiosity, what significant benefit have you measured from using -fstrict-aliasing? </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent question which I carefully want to avoid :-) The problem I want to solve is the following: someone added -fnostrict-aliasing a long time ago and I don't know why. Then it got copied to a number of libraries, then got included in a macro (XORG_CWARNFLAGS), which then got included by over a hundred modules, still not knowing why. There are over 50 modules that are compiling with no warning flags at all. I don't want to contribute to the spread of this option. The patch is about *transferring* the option out of the macro back to the modules (where the skills are) and let them decide if they want that option or not. I am only dealing with the "build system" part of this issue. Thanks! </BODY> </HTML>