search for: misaligned_int

Hi John, On 15 Jan 2016, at 08:14, John McCall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The question at hand is whether we should require the user to write this: > misaligned_A_B *p = &a.b; > instead of, say: > A::B *p = &a.b; > int x = *(misaligned_int*) &p->n; > because we want to reserve the right to invoke undefined behavior and propagate our “knowledge" that p is 4-byte-aligned to “improve” the 1-byte-aligned access on the next line. > > My contention is that this is a clean and elegantly simple formal model that is disa...

(Sorry for the duplicate mail, Richard, I accidentally sent a copy only to you before.) On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Richard Smith via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > [1]: That's not completely true, as it's possible to create an object > that is underaligned for its type: > > struct __attribute__((packed)) A { > char k; > struct B { int n;