rjmccall added a comment. In D81311#2083295 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2083295>, @arsenm wrote:
> In D81311#2078235 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311#2078235>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > I wonder if `byref` would be a better name for this, as a way to say that > > the object is semantically a direct argument that's being passed by > > implicit reference. > > > This is probably a better name, but potentially more easily confused with > byval. That seems like an unlikely confusion. > As far as switching to just the raw number, I think there's value in being > consistent with the other growing family of type-carrying parameter > attributes but I don't really care about the type itself. I don't understand > inalloca/preallocated well enough to know if those should also really only > carry a size. I think carrying a type is probably an attempt to insulate them against the future removal of pointer element types. I don't think it's actually necessary in either case and could certainly just be a size and alignment. But if you want to use a type, I agree it's not inconsistent, and as long as you honor an explicit alignment it's fine. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
