[cfe-dev] RFC: Implementing -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks in clang

[Tim Northover via cfe-dev]

> Despite the name, the flag actually has rather straightforward semantics
> from the compiler's perspective.  From the gcc docs for
> -fdelete-null-pointer-checks: "Assume that programs cannot safely
> dereference null pointers, and that no code or data element resides at
> address zero."  (-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks is the opposite.)

Ah, now that's quite a bit more palatable. I really should have read
the docs before spouting "my favourite rant #1". Then my main concern
is that we end up with a sufficiently clear (and documented)
definition that we're not promising more than we intend. I get very
grumpy if I can't tell someone with UB that they're Doing It Wrong.

Of the two options, I still think the second is a non-starter.
Something between the two might be a datalayout flag specifying
addrspace(0) behaviour. It's pretty easy to argue that it'd be good if
code used some kind of
"DataLayout::isPointerIntrinsicallyInvalid(Value *)" for this kind of
thing anyway (rename or relocate at will).

And the name really is terrible, we should change it if at all feasible

Tim.