aaron.ballman added a comment. In D104285#2951911 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104285#2951911>, @ASDenysPetrov wrote:
> This is really significant obstructions. As what I see the only thing left > for us is to wait until the Standard transforms this //shenanigans// into > legal operations and becomes closer to developers. I don't know if either committee is considering weakening their type system rules in this area, but I'm certain the topic will come up in the WG14 Memory Object Model study group as they try to tighten up the C memory model. In D104285#2951937 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104285#2951937>, @ASDenysPetrov wrote: > @aaron.ballman > Now I'm going to rework this patch according to our disscussion. This is the > first patch in the stack as you can see. And I don't want to lose the series > of improvements so I will adjust it to save further patches. Thank you, sorry this isn't quite the direction you were hoping to go in. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104285/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104285 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
