On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > joerg added a comment. > > No, it doesn't. It tells the compiler that it is free to make such > assumptions. Take a step back from the standard. Can you think of any > reasonable and efficient implementation of memcpy and friends, which fails > for size 0? Adding the annotations (whether here or in string.h) effectively > changes the behavior of the program. It is behavior people have been > expecting for two decades, even when C90 said something else. This is > completely different from the warning annotations. I'm just waiting for some > of the bigger projects like PostgreSQL to start getting annoyed enough to > introduce sane_memcpy for this. > I can't speak for Linux distributions using glibc, but I find this kind of > smoking gun completely unacceptable to force unconditionally on everyone.
Would you be opposed to annotations that tell the programmer they have UB in their code, but *do not* effect the code generation? ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
