bruno accepted this revision. bruno added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM! ================ Comment at: clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:2393 +particular object (so for example, it's never correct to call this function +passing the addresses of fields in the same struct, elements of the same array, +etc.). ---------------- davidtgoldblatt wrote: > bruno wrote: > > Not necessarily a blocker, but it seems like some of these things you > > mention can actually be caught by diagnostics without too much effort? Any > > plans to add them? > I hadn't planned to (at least in the short term). Practically I expect uses > of this to be mostly backed out from looking at bad assembly (this is the way > I've been using it so far in experimentation). You wouldn't generally expect > people to want to try to express "these two struct fields don't alias" and so > on because alias analysis can already handle those cases fairly well. > > My inclination would be to wait on the diagnostics until we see if it's a > real problem, but I'm not strongly opposed if you'd really like them in v1. > (Although in that case I'll probably bug you for some help with where / how > to put the diagnostics). > My inclination would be to wait on the diagnostics until we see if it's a > real problem Sounds fair! Feel free to bug me when/if you decide to explore that route. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D136515/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D136515 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
