> strict aliasing allows for optimizations that are actually worthwhile I don't think there are many sensible, real world examples. A nice explanation of the

> strict aliasing allows for optimizations that are actually worthwhile I don't think there are many sensible, real world examples. A nice explanation of the optimizations the strict-aliasing rule allows: https://stackoverflow.com/a/99010/66088 https://stackoverflow.com/a/99010/66088 The example given is: typedef struct Msg { unsigned int a; unsigned int b; } Msg; void SendWord(uint32_t); int main(void) { // Get a 32-bit buffer from the system uint32_t* buff = malloc(sizeof(Msg)); // Alias that buffer through message Msg* msg = (Msg*)(buff); // Send a bunch of messages for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { msg->a = i; msg->b = i+1; SendWord(buff[0]); SendWord(buff[1]); } } The explanation is: with strict aliasing the compiler doesn't have to think about inserting instructions to reload the contents of buff every iteration of the loop. The problem I have is that when we re-write the example to use a union, the generated code is the same regardless of whether we pass -fno-strict-aliasing or not. So this isn't a working example of an optimization enabled by strict aliasing. It makes no difference whether I build it with clang or gcc, for x86-64 or arm7. I don't think I did it wrong. We still have a memory load instruction in the loop. See https://godbolt.org/z/9xzq87d1r https://godbolt.org/z/9xzq87d1r Knowing whether a C compiler will make an optimization or not is all but impossible. The simplest and most reliable solution in this case is to do the loop hoisting optimization manually: uint32_t buff0 = buff[0]; unit32_t buff1 = buff[1]; for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { msg->a = i; msg->b = i+1; SendWord(buff0); SendWord(buff1); } Doing so removes the load instruction from the loop. See https://godbolt.org/z/ecGrvb3se https://godbolt.org/z/ecGrvb3se Note 1: The first thing that goes wrong for Stackoverflow example is that the compiler spots that malloc returns uninitialized data, so it can omit the reloading of buff in the loop anyway. In fact it removes the malloc too. Here's clang 18 doing that https://godbolt.org/z/97a8K73ss https://godbolt.org/z/97a8K73ss. I had to replace malloc with an undefined GetBuff() function, so the compiler couldn't assume the returned data was unintialized. Note 2: Once we're calling GetBuff() instead of malloc(), the compiler has to assume that SendWord(buff[0]) could change buff, and therefore it has to reload it in the loop even with strict-aliasing enabled.