Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
>
> In message <20090911163321.gb13...@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>>> - ushort * d = (ushort*)&da;
>>> + ulong *dla = &da;
>>> + ushort *d = (ushort*)dla;
>> I don't see how this is any more legal under strict aliasing rules -- you
>> just made it a little more complicated and fooled the compiler into not
>> warning.
>
> Hm... I apologize if I don;t understand this any better, but for me
> silencing the compiler was all that I intended at this moment ;-)
I find that ironic given the previous claim that -fno-strict-aliasing was just
silencing warnings. :-)
Especially since that actually turned off the problematic language feature
(which is more intended for number crunching code than device drivers).
Much like your argument in favor of leaving d-cache disabled, this is a
bootloader -- why complicate it to deal with a fancy compiler optimization that
isn't going to make any performance difference that matters, could break things
even in places where GCC doesn't warn, and is easily disabled?
> Do you have any better approach?
union {
u32 data32;
u16 data16[2];
} data;
data.data32 = da;
if ((addr[0] & data.data16[0]) != data.data16[0] ||
(addr[1] & data.data16[1]) != data.data16[1])
return 2;
etc.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
