rsmith added a comment. In D62825#1542662 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62825#1542662>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D62825#1542639 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62825#1542639>, @rsmith wrote: > > > In my view, the mistake was specifying `nullptr_t` to have the same size > > and alignment as `void*`; it should instead be an empty type. Only > > confusion results from making it "look like" a pointer type rather than > > just being an empty tag type. > > > Perhaps, but that's clearly unfixable without breaking ABI, whereas the > object-representation issue is fixable by, at most, requiring a few stores > that might be difficult to eliminate in some fanciful situations. Requiring initialization of, or assignment to, an object of type nullptr_t to actually store a null pointer value is also an ABI break. (Eg, `void f() { decltype(nullptr) n; g(&n); }` does not initialize `n` today in GCC, Clang, or EDG, but would need to do so under the new rule.) In any case, I've started a discussion on the core reflector. We'll see where that goes. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62825/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62825 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
