Hi, On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Also this insistence that all of "trivially copyable" is already quite > > nicely specified in the C++ ABI is still not really relevant because > > C++ _is not the only language out there_. I'm not sure how often I > > have to repeat this until people get it. > > Other language ABIs can handle language specific calling conventions as > appropriate for them. The psABI can only talk about things that are in > its domain. Naturally. How far to follow that road, though? Remove the word "class" from the description of empty types again? Why is that in-domain and the notion of trivially copyable isn't? Ciao, Michael. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
