royger added a comment.
Ping?
It's not clear to me whether upstream is going to do something about this or
not. I would like to know in case I need to start passing
"-Waddress-of-packed-member" around.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20561
_
royger added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20561#663069, @joerg wrote:
> @royger: Your example is missing explicit alignment. packed has two side
> effects: remove internal padding and set the alignment to 1. That means that
> the offset of base doesn't matter so much because reg itse
royger added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20561#663006, @kimgr wrote:
> ... and both revisions should be in the 4.0 branch (taken from r291814)
>
> I was looking forward to this warning to help iron out alignment issues at
> compile-time instead of runtime (our ARM CPUs don't like una
royger added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20561#662959, @rogfer01 wrote:
> We fixed all identified false positives in later patches to this one. So
> maybe you want to check against trunk clang. If trunk still diagnoses false
> positives, please report them to me and I will be more t
royger reopened this revision.
royger added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Hello,
This addition is silly, and too noisy for real world usage.
For once, it doesn't really check whether the access is actually unaligned or
not, and then on x86 for example unaligned acc
