search for: 1060469

Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "1060469".

Did you mean: 1000469
2017 Jan 02
2
RFC: Allowing @llvm.objectsize to be more conservative with null.
Hi George, Have you considered changing our existing behavior to match GCC's builtin_object_size instead of adding a new parameter? That may be simpler overall. There's also a clear upgrade strategy -- fold every old style call to "<min> ? 0 : 1". You probably already know this, but GCC folds builtin_object_size(0, 0) to -1 and builtin_object_size(0, 2) to 0. We'll