> Whether with -wrapv or with the unsigned macros, we simply disable some > compiler optimizations, perhaps some good optimizations too.
Most certainly, yes. But there are a lot more things that slow down the potential performance of FreeType -- C in itself is a trade-off between maintainability and performance. > Why? Is it because we got scared? There is absolutely no evidence of real bugs > in FreeType. It is reasonable to disable optimizations with -wrapv, if > scared, but macros are too rigid. Some compilers recognize /* fall through */ > comment to suppress particular warnings. I wish we could just add a comment to > silence these warnings after adjudication. It's not about being scared but about making sure we understand _what_ the code within FT does. If we proactively mark operations that have a certain behaviour we make those operations explicit to whomever reads that thing in the future. `-wrapv' has two downsides IMO: (1) we lose track of what it does and _where_ ... maybe, really covering up bugs (2) we rely on 3rd parties to compile FT in a very specific way to avoid certain types of reports. _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
