> > Would you be opposed to annotations that tell the programmer they have > UB in their code, but *do not* effect the code generation?
Not on our end. This would be great. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > joerg added a comment. > > > > No, it doesn't. It tells the compiler that it is free to make such > assumptions. Take a step back from the standard. Can you think of any > reasonable and efficient implementation of memcpy and friends, which fails > for size 0? Adding the annotations (whether here or in string.h) > effectively changes the behavior of the program. It is behavior people have > been expecting for two decades, even when C90 said something else. This is > completely different from the warning annotations. I'm just waiting for > some of the bigger projects like PostgreSQL to start getting annoyed enough > to introduce sane_memcpy for this. > > I can't speak for Linux distributions using glibc, but I find this kind > of smoking gun completely unacceptable to force unconditionally on everyone. > > Would you be opposed to annotations that tell the programmer they have > UB in their code, but *do not* effect the code generation? > > ~Aaron > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
