Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:54:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:54:51 -0500 Received: from covert.black-ring.iadfw.net ([209.196.123.142]:32018 "EHLO covert.brown-ring.iadfw.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:54:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:04:34 -0600 From: Art Haas To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Is -fno-strict-aliasing still needed? Message-ID: <20030210200434.GA376@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1167 Lines: 26 Hi. I ask because I've just built a kernel without using that flag - linus-2.5 BK from this morning, probably missing the 2.5.60 release by a few hours. I'm now running with the kernel, and things are working normally. So, my success with my strictly aliased kernel has made me curious if the continuing use of the flag has outlived its usefulness. I'm running on i586, compiling with gcc-3.2.2 (CVS). Possibly the flag is needed for other chipsets or older compilers, or particular bits of code that I don't compile. Still, I thought I'd ask and see. Maybe other people can try building without '-fno-strict-aliasing' and see what sort of results they get. I'm not including my config file to save space, but can send it if asked. Art Haas -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/