Re: fix for strict-alias warnings

"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Even without the extra overhead, the danger of strict-aliasing is not just
> related to alignment.

If I understand the issue at all, it has *nothing* to do with alignment.

> As I understand it, given strict-aliasing assumptions
> the compiler is free to reorder some operations on things it thinks can't be
> the same thing, or even optimise them away because they can have no effect.

Yah...

> I'm not 100% sure we have avoided that danger.

I don't think we understand the dangers quite yet, and I think the
patches applied to date constitute useless thrashing rather than fixes.
I'd like to see less quick-hack patching and more discussion.

In particular, given that there is as yet no demonstrated effect other
than mere warnings issued by a possibly-buggy gcc release, I think it's
premature to be hacking our sources at all.

regards, tom lane