<!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 Sun, 2010-10-31 at 11:29 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <TT>Right, but the problem is that my util-macros contain a patchset from February that never got committed (and I never noticed they didn't get committed because I was still using your patchset).  This change that I've suggested is essentially doing what we agreed upon back in February (Feb 23 - Feb 27 on xorg-devel)</TT> </BLOCKQUOTE> So an accident occurred while creating the xserver tarball. This can be fixed without any patch. I would recommend rolling a new tarball with the 1.10 version of util-macros (from the published tarballs). It is crucial that the published tarball can be reproduced by anyone from git and does not contain any private fix, intended or accidental. <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <TT>I will be rolling a new tarball to re-add the flag (and also address one Xquartz regression), but the main point is that -fno-strict-aliasing should *NOT* be in CWARNFLAGS.  It is an ugly hack CFLAG to get around buggy C code.  This flag was originally just in xorg-server and a handful of libraries but eventually polluted all of our packages via CWARNFLAGS in util-macros.  It is not a warning flag.  It changes how the code is compiled (so by definition is not a warning flag).</TT> </BLOCKQUOTE> I would like to keep the two issues separate for the sake of clarity. I completely agree that this option should have never been included in CWARNFLAGS. However, not everyone agrees the code should be compiled without it. We could resume the discussion on this topic on it's own thread, as it is a complex issue. The patch does not remove this option from CWARNFLAGS and does not fix bug 21238. I am sorry if I missing something. Gaetan </BODY> </HTML>