On Feb 15, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 15, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> I think this makes isPaddingElement and a bunch of code in llvm- >>> types.cpp dead. >> >> Yes, thought I'd see how this patch went first:) > > Heh ok :) Looks like you were right :) > >>> Doesn't this also cause us to regress on PR1278? >> >> If that's what you want to call it. Personally I think padding >> should >> be >> deterministic whenever possible, even though the standards don't >> require it; you get fewer Interesting bugs that way. > > Ok, but this still doesn't get us that, and I don't see how we > reasonably could ever get it in general: > > struct mystruct x; > x.f = 1; > x.g = 2; > > leaves any padding uninitialized.
You can do it by initializing all struct objects, say to 0. The overhead for that is probably too high; in practice there would be cases you wouldn't get. _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
