David Schwartz writes:
 > 
 > > Well, yeah.  I know what you mean.  However, at this moment, some
 > > gcc developers are trying really hard not to be total d*ckheads
 > > about this issue, but get gcc fixed.  Give us a chance.
 > 
 > Can we get some kind of consensus that 'optimizations' that add
 > writes to any object that the programmer might have taken the
 > address of are invalid on any platform that supports memory
 > protection?

That's what the proposed standard language says, kinda-sorta.  There's
an informal description at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2338.html.

Anyway, we have fixed this bug and are committing it to all open gcc
branches.  Credit to Ian Taylor for writing the patch.

Andrew.

-- 
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
-
unsubscribe notice
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/