------- Comment #3 from tg at mirbsd dot org 2007-01-16 02:33 ------- Subject: Re: Integer Overflow detection code optimised away, -fwrapv broken
Andrew Pinski (pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org) dixit: >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477 >Fixed in 4.0.0, 3.4.x is no longer being maintained by the FSF and has not for >a while now. >If you don't want to move to a newer GCC, that is your issue. Interesting. So that basically means that, while you are publically admitting that you wrote the (faulty, from a security and pragmatic point of view) optimisation code, you are not willing to provide an instruction to disable it just because gcc 3.4 is no longer suppor- ted, and try to coerce us into "upgrading", while⦠>Also why should we support older GCC when we can barrely support the current >ones? ⦠you're publically stating, in the same PR that you can't even get current versions of gcc to perform correctly and produce sane code? I think this is a very poor attitude of yours. If someone adds code doing a possibly unsafe optimisation he usually also adds a flag to disable that certain optimisation. You didn't do this when breaking gcc in the past. It's a shame that this was only discovered recent- ly, especially due to security considerations. The real shame is an attitude of "we won't fix it, either use -O0, or upgrade to current versions of gcc, which, by the way, are poorly supported and do not compile existing¹ programmes correctly at all"? > Resolution| |FIXED Is this a practical joke or what? I specifically did *not* open the bug report against gcc4. You people should know better than to tell users to test incremental diffs of what happened between 3.4 and 4, because I've never seen a gcc developer who didn't talk of that new version of a "major change". Especially you as the author of code in question could probably put together a patch which solves the problem for gcc 3.4.6, the latest one of the affected series; interested parties could back-port this to other versions then. ¹) I know of at least qemu - there are probably many more. Besides, upgrading gcc involves upgrading g++ which is a PITA, despite it being an "improvement of adhering to the language specification" this BREAKS EXISTING CODE. Not everyone can afford this. For what it's worth: I'm writing as developer of the MirOS Project, but I am also a developer of FreeWRT, an embedded GNU/Linux distri- bution kit which is used by the president of the FSF Europe, and it *also* uses gcc 3.x on most platforms because upgrading simply *IS* *NOT* *POSSIBLE*. I sincerely hope some other developer reading this will have a dif- ferent position on this topic. Otherwise, the GCC steering commitee might have bad public relations in a not-so-far future. Sincerely, //mirabile -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30477
