[cfe-dev] [RFC] automatic variable initialization

[Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev]

Hey Tim,

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 15:00, Tim Northover via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> a écrit :

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 22:53, JF Bastien via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >   2. Zero initialization
> >
> >     Zero initialize all values. This has the unfortunate side-effect of
> >     providing semantics to otherwise undefined behavior, programs
> therefore
> >     might start to rely on this behavior, and that's sad. However, some
> >     programmers believe that pattern initialization is too expensive for
> them,
> >     and data might show that they're right. The only way to make these
> >     programmers wrong is to offer zero-initialization as an option,
> figure out
> >     where they are right, and optimize the compiler into submission.
> Until the
> >     compiler provides acceptable performance for all security-minded
> code, zero
> >     initialization is a useful (if blunt) tool.
>
> I disagree with this. I think this is essentially defining a new
> dialect of C++, which I have massive concerns about. Additionally, as
> much as we might claim it's a transitional measure, we all know that's
> not how it'll be used in practice.


How is it different that other options like -fno-strict-aliasing or trap on
sign integer wrap?
These are all options that are "defining new dialect of C++", yet are
useful for some customers.
Why is it that bad to support a "new dialect" in these conditions?

Cheers,

-- 
Mehdi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20181119/c83aea6b/attachment.html>