jfb added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604#1300544, @t.p.northover wrote:
> > This isn't meant to change the semantics of C and C++. > > As I said in the cfe-dev thread, that's exactly what it does. Specifically I > think this is essentially defining a new dialect of C++, which I have massive > concerns about. Additionally, as much as we might claim it's a transitional > measure, we all know that's not how it'll be used in practice. (cross-posting from cfe-dev) I suspected that you’d disagree with zero-initialization. :-) I tried to outline why I think it’s important: - Security-minded people think the need it. They might be right. - We need data to prove that they don’t need it. Forgive my use of silly rhetoric: I’m sure you agree that more data is good! Here’s what I propose, since you cared enough to voice your opinion: let’s worth together to narrow the performance gap. I’ve got a handful of optimization opportunities, and you know the backend better than I do. Once we’ve addressed the issues we know about, I’m sure other types of codebases will surface other performance issues, let’s address those too. Once people who think they need zero initialization are proven wrong though compiler optimizations, we can deprecate (and eventually remove / repurpose) the flag. If they’re not proven wrong… we’ll have learned something. Sounds fair? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54604 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
