Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Performance of unaligned memory-accesses Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:27:47 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 14 Message-ID: <86mugb7lvg.fsf@mailhub.linuxsc.com> References: <_ic4F.727$t92.96@fx25.am4> <7yd4F.2$CO2.0@fx30.am4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f86338710750d7af41889a1532e7291c"; logging-data="23014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193VdHrN0qIY2xm0EaC/PJWSXzUDIEWuAE=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:JiF8fUVmjQS0o9kKTXFRty8B6pE= sha1:uXieoXoMT87Uh4hUQMhpn3Ea19E= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:67654 Bonita Montero writes: >> Again, I commented assertion that unaligned access causes undefined >> behavior. And I don't care what 0x3 means. > > As I said that's not undefined behaviour because the compiler would > be unable to generate the code as expected but because the CPU might > fail / trap an unaligned access at runtime and the OS might emulate > tzhe unaligned access or not. So it depends on the platform you > target. If a given operation has undefined behavior, it doesn't stop having undefined behavior just because it happens to do what you want it to.