[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.4 problem? (resend)

[David Vandevoorde]

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 distinct
> 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.

Note that I don't think that model will have majority support when the  
issue is discussed (that's just a guess).  However, the current words  
don't seem to make it an invalid model, and there is some suspicion  
that the changes for Core issue 73 that made it so were not entirely  
accidental.

	Daveed