On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:47 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Scott,
In message 20090728225244.GA8187@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net you wrote:
The patch title is bad -- it's not disabling warnings, it's disabling an aspect of C99 that the code is incompatible with (and which is pretty questionable in the first place with such low level code). Note that in Linux, this is disabled for the entire kernel.
I know. But Linux is bigger than U-Boot, and I think we should be able to fix the few isolated places that throw such warnings.
As things stand, GCC may do bad things with that code. With this patch, it may not (at least not this particular sort of bad thing). Those bad things are not limited to the places where it warns -- those are just the violations it detected.
Agreed, and that's why I want to see this fixed.
Do you have an alternative malloc implementation in mind that is designed to work with strict aliasing, or a suggested fix to the current one?
I did not look into this yet - there was some discussion about a malloc replacement, but it faded away without visible result.
I cannot do everything myself, but I can oppose changes that are IMO to the worse.
Do we have any ideas what type of performance we're looking for from malloc?
- k