On 24.03.2020 14:30, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> (3) Patch Clang to start optimizing on NULL + in C so we can return to
> points (1) and (2).
>
I have received a feedback that the particular NULL + 0 issue is
intended to be reported to the C committee as a defect.
I appreciate this approach. If
On 24.03.2020 07:43, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:30:56 +0100
>> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>>
>> On 22.03.2020 01:50, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>>> So far, after several weeks of discussion, nobody has presented a case
>>> that there is a credible thread of a compiler
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:30:56 +0100
> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>
> On 22.03.2020 01:50, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> > So far, after several weeks of discussion, nobody has presented a case
> > that there is a credible thread of a compiler actually misbehaving in
> > this scenario.
>
> There
On 22.03.2020 01:50, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 00:03:57 +0100
>> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>>
>> I propose to change the fun(pointer + 0) logic with fun(pointer, 0).
>
> I don't think this is a good approach -- it requires modifying code
> further and further away from the
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 12:50:16AM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> (b) Change how we invoke ubsan and the compiler by passing
> -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks to clang. joerg objected to this
> but I don't recall the details off the top of my head; joerg, can
> you expand on your
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 00:03:57 +0100
> From: Kamil Rytarowski
>
> I propose to change the fun(pointer + 0) logic with fun(pointer, 0).
I don't think this is a good approach -- it requires modifying code
further and further away from the relevant part.
But let's step back a moment.
So far,
