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
-
