MaskRay wrote:

> @zygoloid Thanks for the explanation! I wasn't aware this fell under 
> unspecified behavior. It's weird that alignment information can survive a 
> `void *` cast, but it does make some sense.

Yes, `(void *)x` decreases the alignment requirement to 1 byte like `(char *)x`.

> What seems worrying here is that apparently GCC and Clang do not agree on 
> semantics in this case 
> ([]( GCC does not 
> assume that the pointers are aligned. The perils of unspecified behavior....


I am out of town and will merge this PR later.
cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to