lebedev.ri planned changes to this revision. lebedev.ri added a comment. @rjmccall thank you for taking a look!
In D99791#2670333 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99791#2670333>, @rjmccall wrote: > The last major conversation we had about this was this RFC I sent out about > five years ago: > > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/094012.html > > In that RFC, I specifically argued that we should not do this, and that it > should only be considered undefined behavior to actually access memory > through a misaligned pointer (for a particular definition of "access > memory"). At Apple, we have made that a promise to our internal users, so > even if we decide to do this, we will need to not do it on Darwin. However, > as I remember it, the LLVM community did not reach a consensus to adopt my > recommendation, so in principle we still have the flexibility to start doing > this. I continue to believe that doing so would be a mistake. At any rate, > you should start by reading that thread. Thank you for the pointer! I can for sure provide an opt-out, however note that in the end it will cause performance regressions as compared to the current LLVM optimizations. I will start with an UBSan part then. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99791/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99791 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
