Can we keep this pass around for some time? I have some tentative plan to extend it to cover some scenarios though not concrete yet.

In D122573#3872138, @fhahn wrote:

Rebased on current main

In D122573#3630767, @rui.zhang wrote:

I like the direction where this change is leading to and hope there is some way to land it incrementally. Since BuiltinType has the above mentioned concern on void *, how about we focus on RecordType pointers as a first step instead? Are there any pitfalls if we distinguish RecordType pointers by depth?

An initial restriction like that sounds reasonable to me. @jcranmer-intel @efriedma @rjmccall WDYT?

I also updated the type sanitizer patches and posted https://discourse.llvm.org/t/reviving-typesanitizer-a-sanitizer-to-catch-type-based-aliasing-violations/66092 to discuss ways to move forward with the sanitizer.

Thanks for fixing it.

Your change looks great to me. Thanks for improving this case.

I like the direction where this change is leading to and hope there is some way to land it incrementally. Since BuiltinType has the above mentioned concern on void *, how about we focus on RecordType pointers as a first step instead? Are there any pitfalls if we distinguish RecordType pointers by depth?

Well, if you can find a solution to the void* <-> T** problem, that might make it tractable. Or you can introduce a flag to control whether we do this — I guess on some level -fstrict-aliasing ought to be the full language model, so this would mean introducing a -fless-strict-aliasing or something like it.

Is it helpful if we only track pointers to user defined types so that void * or char * is not in the picture?

In D99354#2795599, @jaykang10 wrote:

I was able to see the speed up on omnetpp of SPEC2006 but there was no speedup on omentpp of SPEC2017. I guess you are looking SPEC2017 one.