https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18016
--- Comment #13 from ag0aep6g <ag0ae...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #12) > I don't understand how the suggestion that the behavior is implementation > defined doesn't jive with LLVM's chosen behavior. As a whole, using an uninitialized variable wouldn't be implementation defined. That would be silly. Walter's PR doesn't do that. It only says that the value you get is up to the implementation. Everything else must work as usual. So LLVM would have to give you some value. It wouldn't be allowed to just omit the whole access and everything that depends on it (as it apparently does at the moment). --
