On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov <euge...@google.com> wrote: > eugenis added a subscriber: eugenis. > eugenis added a comment. > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20561#446031, @aaron.ballman wrote: > >> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20561#445824, @rogfer01 wrote: >> >> > I think I wasn't clear with the purpose of the fix-it: there are a few >> > cases where getting the address of an unaligned pointer is safe (i.e. >> > false positives). >> > >> > For instance, when I checked Firefox and Chromium there are cases where >> > getting the address of an unaligned pointer is fine. For the particular >> > case of these two browsers, they both use a library (usrsctp) that >> > represents protocol data as packed structs. That library passes addresses >> > of packed fields to `memcpy` and `memmove` which is OK. >> >> >> I think this is a false-positive that should be fixed. > > > This patch was committed without fixing the false positive case, why?
Can you give some more code context, like perhaps a test case we can add to the suite? I believe the current behavior should be essentially false-positive-free because it only triggers the diagnostic when the alignments actually differ, so if there are other false-positives, I agree that we should determine a disposition for them. > Could this warning be excluded from -Wall? Would you like the warning to be excluded from -Wall even if the false-positive is fixed? ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
