arsenm added a comment. In D130224#3677224 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130224#3677224>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> However, what I think I'm hearing from this thread is that there are > alternative approaches that have been thought about but not tried, we're not > certain how feasible those approaches are in practice, but we expect them to > be materially worse than what's proposed here. So it's not "this was the path > of least resistance", but "this is the correct design." Do others agree with > that assessment? I think this is just the least bad on the menu of available options. I don't like it, but it at least provides documentation about this special behavior. I think the only other plausible option is to assert this is still undefined behavior and force users to update their (newly declared invalid) code. We could at least partially re-optimize to uninitialized values in the backend (although this is apparently difficult in some situations) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130224/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130224 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
