new release?

[David Zeuthen]

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 12:17 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 12:16 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > Hey,
> > 
> > Can we go ahead and release 0.34? I need the fixes put in post 0.33 to
> > just get hal running.
> 
> Bah, I meant 0.33 respectively 0.32.
> 

Hi, so Havoc wants 'make check' to pass before we do a release.

So, 'make check' does pass with gcc32 (gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red
Hat Linux 3.2.3-47.fc4)), the only non-gcc4 compiler I have around, but
I can't get it to work with gcc4 (gcc version 4.0.0 20050412 (Red Hat
4.0.0-0.42)). I've confirmed this for both 0.30, 0.31, 0.32 and CVS
HEAD.

It's late, so maybe I'm missing something, but this is really creepy: In
dbus-marshal-recursive-util.c we have this function

        static dbus_bool_t
        string_write_value (TestTypeNode   *node,
                            DataBlock      *block,
                            DBusTypeWriter *writer,
                            int             seed)
        {
          char buf[MAX_SAMPLE_STRING_LEN];
          const char *v_string = buf;
        
          string_from_seed (buf, node->klass->subclass_detail,
                            seed);
        
          _dbus_warn ("buf='%s' 0x%08x\n", buf, (void *) buf);
          _dbus_warn ("v_string='%s' 0x%08x\n", v_string, (void *) v_string);
        
          return _dbus_type_writer_write_basic (writer,
                                                node->klass->typecode,
                                                &v_string);
        }
        
where the _dbus_warn lines is added by myself. Obviously these lines
should print the same thing, yes?, and they do with gcc32. However, with
gcc4 I get different results

 buf='BCDEFGHIJK' 0xbf94840e
 v_string='' 0xbf948400

which really surprises me. Passing CFLAGS="-O1" CXXFLAGS="-O1" to
configure lets 'make check' pass though :-/. Assuming this is a gcc4
bug, can we force -O1 for the time being and do a release?

Cheers,
David