From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40008)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zhim4-0000wp-Ee
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:40:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zhim0-0003VJ-8Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:40:12 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36226)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1Zhim0-0003Up-3I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:40:08 -0400
References: <1443558863-26132-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com>
	<1443558863-26132-2-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com>
	<560BE355.60901@redhat.com> <560C44F4.6030200@twiddle.net>
	<CAFEAcA8rOGvjbnoUt8O+7ANCE_bxQ5U6FktcFeot81hfYw8AzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<560D3A8B.4020603@redhat.com> <560D6857.1030501@redhat.com>
	<560D6DBD.9010305@redhat.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <560D7E04.5020505@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:40:04 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <560D6DBD.9010305@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] target-i386: Use 1UL for bit shift
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 10/01/15 19:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/10/2015 19:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> In addition, C89 didn't say at all what the result was for signed data
>>> types, so technically we could compile QEMU with -std=gnu89 (the default
>>> until GCC5) and call it a day.
>>>
>>> Really the C standard should make this implementation-defined.
>>
>> Obligatory link: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1180
> 
> Many ideas in there are good (e.g. mem*() being defined for invalid
> argument and zero lengths, and of course item 7 which is the issue at
> hand).  In many cases it's also good to change undefined behavior to
> unspecified values, however I think that goes too far.
> 
> For example I'm okay with signed integer overflow being undefined
> behavior, and I also disagree with "It is permissible to compute
> out-of-bounds pointer values including performing pointer arithmetic on
> the null pointer".  Using uintptr_t is just fine.
> 
> Also strict aliasing improves performance noticeably at least on some
> kind of code.  The relaxation of strict aliasing that GCC does with
> unions would be a useful addition to the C standard, though.

What do you mean under "relaxation of strict aliasing that GCC does with
unions"? I believe I know how unions affect this (although for details
I'd obviously have to consult the standard :)), but what are the gcc
specific parts?

Thanks!
Laszlo