LiuChen3 added a comment. In D99565#2682809 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99565#2682809>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> I'm still uncomfortable with changing current status quo, even though i > obviously don't get to cast the final vote here. > > One should not use aligned loads in hope that they will cause an exception to > detect address misalignment. > That's UBSan's job. `-fsanitize=undefined`/`-fsanitize=aligment` *should* > catch it. > If it does not do so in your particular case, please file a bug, i would like > to take a look. > > Likewise, i don't think one should do overaligned loads and hope that they > will just work. > UB is UB. The code will still be miscompiled, but you've just hidden your > warning. > > Likewise, even if unaligned loads can be always used, i would personally find > it pretty surprising > to suddenly see unaliged loads instead of aligned ones. > Also, isn't that only possible/so when AVX is available? > Also, doesn't that cause compiler lock-in? > What happens without AVX? Do so anyways at the perfomance's cost? > Or back to exceptions? > > Should this process in any form other than the UBSan changes, > i would like to first see a RFC on llvm-dev. > Sorry about being uneasy about this. :S We are happy to hear your voice. We will discuss this on llvm-dev later after confirming Craigs's opinion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99565/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99565 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
