[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.4 problem? (resend)
daveed at vandevoorde.com
Fri Oct 17 06:42:52 PDT 2008
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:04 AM, David Vandevoorde
> <daveed at vandevoorde.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:22 AM, Eli Friedman wrote:
>>>> The current consensus among CoreWG experts is that the words in the
>>> current standard (and those in the current WP) do not require
>>> variables and temporaries to have distinct addresses per se.
>>> Then what's the alternative model?
>> That if two complete objects can never be distinguished by observing
>> their value, then they may be allocated at the same address.
> That's an extremely difficult model to deal with, even ignoring that
> it might break user code. It isn't too difficult to write a program
> where two complete objects can be distinguished by observing their
> value if and only if they are allocated at the same address.
Agreed. Hopefully, the working paper will make that clear relatively
soon (unfortunately, the CD balloting period is about to start; that
may introduce delays on certain work items).
More information about the llvm-dev