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 - 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/
