> 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. > > Andrew.
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 seems like obvious common sense to me. And it has the advantage that it can't be language-lawyered. There is no document that states the rational requirements of a compiler that's going to support a memory protection model. So they can be anything rational people think they should be. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
