If alternative compilers had such a flag, you'd end up with code that was incompatible with rustc, leading to an ecosystem split. This is one of the major fears within the community about alternative implementations.
IIRC the GCC Rust developers have stated a desire for compatibility, and therefore I'm not sure that they would accept this flag either, but we'll just have to see I guess.
Yeah that was me I'm afraid. That said, I strongly disagree that -fno-strict-aliasing changes language semantics in an appreciable way, since using it to deliberately circumvent the aliasing rules still wouldn't be sanctioned by Rust. You'd just have a predictable, mostly acceptable form of "UB" rather than whatever glitter the compiler feels like farting into your face. If I was asking for a flag that broke existing code, I'd understand, but since this change is totally backwards compatible, I don't understand the objection.
EDIT, responding to yours: it was explained in the thread, at length: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/add-rustc-flag-to-disable-... it's not backwards compatible. The very first post is the language team co-lead explaining:
> Whether or not rustc makes use of the codegen backend's support for optimizing &mut using noalias, by specification and defition &mut is still an exclusive reference. Various parts of the language and library depend on that exclusivity for soundness. &mut is not the mechanism you're looking for.
The truth of the matter is that I'm horrified by stacked borrows and what it represents, because it will make unsafe code extremely painful to write and extremely brittle. Rust needs a way to opt-out of these aggressive optimizations, like every other systems language ever has had for the majority of their lifespans. A function attribute would be acceptable, but the truth is, Rust is not open to any such enhancements for unsafe code. They seem hell-bent on enforcing "safety" on deliberately unsafe code, even if it breaks that code in subtle ways.
EDIT: I have no interest in arguing further. This is a hopeless and frankly rather disheartening topic for me. Rust has brought out more strong emotions from me than any other language I have ever used. I suppose why it matters to me is because I see such potential in Rust, and I feel it's being taken down the wrong path. But, that's just my opinion.
As the next sentence of that very first post said:
> There is a way to tell the language exactly what you want: you can use unsafe, raw pointers, UnsafeCell, and abstractions built atop them.
And again, this is not about optimization, this is about semantics. What you want is a different semantics, which is why it is not something that we would accept as a flag. Rustc does already let you change what optimizations are done to your code (trivially: -C opt-level=n). That is not an issue. This just isn't about optimization.
You don't seem to understand the concept of undefined behavior. What I'm trying to say is that even if rustc generates the correct output, the code could still officially be declared UB, just as it is now in debug mode. If it breaks logic that relies on the exclusivity of &mut, well, that's what UB does, it breaks things.
It is entirely an optimization option.
You're right that I think it would be nice if you could have multiple &muts created from raw pointers, but I'm not asking for that. The reason these things are issues at all is because Rust uses these references for things like RAII (e.g. &mut self in drop()), and there's no way to use raw pointers instead. If Rust provided a way to use raw pointers more easily in the places you need them, this would be a non-issue. But right now, the unsafe/safe boundary is very dangerous in Rust, so dangerous that I'm uncomfortable working in it even though I've worked in C and C++ for over a decade, and it's entirely a self-inflicted wound by the Rust devs.
Okay, now I am done here, like you said you were before this post.