jyknight added a comment. In D123642#3450110 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123642#3450110>, @efriedma wrote:
>> I disagree with this on principle -- IMO, it is basically a historical bug >> in GCC that it ignores the type alignment, and we should NOT try to match >> that -- it's dangerous. > > gcc has always behaved this way, and I don't see any indication they intend > to change it. I mean, you can call it a bug, but at the end of the day the > bug reports will land in our bugtracker, not gcc's. Have we had many other such bug reports? On the other hand, I have seen many cases where people wrote code using the `__atomic_*` APIs, and pass arguments which are underaligned on some platforms (though not the one the code was developed on). Having it be silently non-atomic (which is what typically happens with misaligned atomic instructions) is just...really nasty. >> Ask GCC to modify libstdc++ so that `__builtin_addressof` is called >> directly, instead of going through `std::__addressof`. > > Even if gcc did this today, it would take years to reach people on Linux. True, but the behavior in the meantime is correct. And given the apparent lack of widespread issues, I'm not sure it much matters. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123642/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123642 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
