MaskRay wrote: > If possible I would prefer to keep -m[no-]unaligned-access for AArch64. > > The history of this option name derives from Arm's proprietary compiler > [developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0472/m/Compiler-Command-line-Options/--unaligned-access----no-unaligned-access](https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dui0472/m/Compiler-Command-line-Options/--unaligned-access----no-unaligned-access) > which has been carried forward for the LLVM based Arm Compiler > [developer.arm.com/documentation/101754/0621/armclang-Reference/armclang-Command-line-Options/-munaligned-access---mno-unaligned-access?lang=en](https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101754/0621/armclang-Reference/armclang-Command-line-Options/-munaligned-access---mno-unaligned-access?lang=en) > > Yes the proprietary compiler can always put this back as a downstream change. > However we are trying to introduce more use of upstream clang and it would > help migration of these projects if they didn't need to change.
Thanks for the comments. The first link gives `--unaligned_access, --no_unaligned_access`, which Clang doesn't support. Does the second link mean AArch32 or AArch64? I thinks there may be strong motivation to keep both `-m[no-]strict-align` (`-mno-strict-align` was a recent introduction by LoongArch folks) but very little for AArch64 (since GCC has always been rejecting `-m[no-]unaligned-access`). Part of the motivation behind the change and https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85350 is to discourage future ports (including existing RISC-V/LoongArch) to create aliases for architectures that don't need the aliases. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85441 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
