On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 02:06:58PM -0700, Marshall Clow via cfe-commits wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Dan Albert <danalb...@google.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, those sound like exactly what we want. Helping people find UB is > > good, but optimizing assuming we've fixed all of the UB isn't something we > > can do. > > > > Dan -- that's the situation you're in today. > GCC has done that kind of optimization for *years*.
Only on platforms that use this markup. Which is exactly the point I am raising. The gain by this optimisation is questionable at best and it has created (or exposed, however you want to call it) non-trivial bugs in the real world. There is a reason why there is a lot of push back outside glibc for this markers. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
