steakhal added a comment. In D48866#1527540 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48866#1527540>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D48866#1527506 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48866#1527506>, @steakhal wrote: > > > The problem with the `-Wcast-align` is that it will only fire for C-style > > bitcast expressions, not for `reinterpret_cast` ones. example > > <https://godbolt.org/z/cm3S96> > > Does anyone know why is that behavior? > > > Because `reinterpret_cast` is by definition allowed to perform these casts, > so it is assumed that no warning should be issued. > This part of the check i look forward to. I still don't understand why should `-Wcast-align` issue warning only for c-style casts. What is the difference in the given example? What are the related paragraphs in the standard? I assume in the example we violated the basic.lval/11 <http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lval#11> paragraph, so neither of those pointers are safely dereferencable. In case we are casting from **char* ** we don't know what is the **dynamic type** of the object (same with std::byte, void * etc.). From my point of view the style of the cast is not important in this case, only the fact that both are performing bitcasts. Have I missed something? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D48866/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D48866 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
