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? Could this warning be excluded from -Wall? Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D20561 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
