mehdi_amini added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27163#606744, @arphaman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27163#606695, @mehdi_amini wrote: > > > What is the justification for a platform specific default change here? > > > The flag itself is platform agnostic, however, the default value is different > on Darwin (-fno-strict-return). The reason for this difference is because of > how I interpreted the internal discussion for this issue: it seems that some > of our internal builds had problems with this flag, so to me it seemed that > people would've wanted this specific difference upstream. I was not involved in the internal discussion, and the pre-existing internal arguments should be repeated here when needed to drive the patch. I find dubious that the compiler wouldn't have specific handling for undefined behavior on a specific platform, without a strong argument that justify it (like a platform with a different hardware memory model making it more sensitive, etc.). In the current case, it seems like a "vendor specific choice" of being more conservative rather than something attached to the platform itself, so I'm not sure it makes sense to hard-code this upstream. Do we have past records of doing this? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D27163 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
