lebedev.ri added a comment. @efriedma thank you for taking a look! I agree that D99790 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790> is basically guaranteed safe, and this "probably" isn't.
In D99791#2667047 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99791#2667047>, @efriedma wrote: > This feels scary: the C standard technically allows this, but we haven't done > it in the past, and it could break otherwise functioning code. (We've only > assumed alignment about pointers that are dereferenced/dereferenceable.) I can add necessary UBSan plumbing beforehand, iff we can actually do this. > For D99790 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99790>, we're already marking the > pointer dereferenceable, so also marking the alignment seems like a small > extra step. (Really, it's a regression fix; we used to treat dereferenceable > as implying alignment. I guess I missed a spot when I was fixing that.) Yep. Feel like stamping that one? :) > But here, we're not assuming it's dereferenceable at the moment. So there's > more potential to break code, and also the potential benefit is small. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99791/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99791 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
