nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D58797#1439888 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58797#1439888>, @erik.pilkington wrote:
> Ah, I didn't consider that case. Presumably `st` is configured to have > different sizes based on the target? Yes; sorry I was not clear about that in my example. > I agree that this is a false-positive, but it seems like a pretty narrow edge > case, and there is a pretty obvious source workaround that doesn't affect > readability: `memcpy(&buf, st, sizeof(buf))`. Oh, yeah, we could make that source level change. > @aaron.ballman/@rsmith Any thoughts here? IMO keeping this diagnostic is > worth it. I'm all for keeping it, I'm curious if it can be extended to NOT warn in the case provided? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58797/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58797 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
