> On May 19, 2016, at 12:08 AM, Andrew Trick via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Swift evolution, > > I'm sending this proposal out again for another round of RFC. The first round > did not get much specific feedback, and nothing has fundamentally changed. In > this updated version I beefed up the explanation a bit and clarified the > language.
Hi Andy, I think this is a reasonable proposal. It seems like the real win here is to be able to define TBAA rules for Unsafe[Mutable]Pointer references, instead of having to treat them *all* conservatively (something I’m generally supportive of). A few questions/observations: - It seems like the proposal should include a discussion about that, because that’s a pretty substantial change to the programming model. - Does TBAA for these accesses actually produce better performance in practice on any existing known use cases? - Would it be possible for tools like UBSAN to catch violations of this? I’m not familiar with what ubsan does for C TBAA violations (if anything). - It isn’t clear to me why it is important to change how "void*” is imported. Since you can’t deference an UnsafePointer<Void> anyway, why does it matter for this proposal? -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
