rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42366#1014157, @kosarev wrote:
> I think zero would serve better as the unknown-size value. People who are not > aware of TBAA internals would guess that since zero-sized accesses make no > sense, they are likely to have some special meaning. Similarly, for code that > is supposed to process the size fields of access descriptors zero would be an > obvious "illegal size value". In contrast, UINT64_MAX is just a very large > number that doesn't hint anything on its special purpose. My thoughts exactly. John. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42366 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
