jfb added a comment. In D74361#1879559 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74361#1879559>, @rjmccall wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to be re-using the existing attribute like > this. It's not that unreasonable, I guess, but I'd like to hear JF's > thoughts. The current uninitialized attribute fits the model C and C++ follow for attributes: they have no semantic meaning for a valid program, in that a compiler can just ignore them and (barring undefined behavior) there's no observable effect to the program. This updated semantic changes the behavior of a valid C and C++ program, because the standards specify the value of uninitialized globals and TLS. I'd much rather have a separate attribute, say `no_zero_init`, to explicitly say what this does. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74361/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74361 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
