aaron.ballman 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? 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))`. @aaron.ballman/@rsmith Any thoughts here? IMO keeping this > diagnostic is worth it. Yes, I think we should keep this diagnostic. However, if we can find a way to silence it for this particular false-positive pattern, that would be great! 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
