xry111 added a comment. In D151298#4367215 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298#4367215>, @wangleiat wrote:
> In D151298#4367163 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298#4367163>, @xry111 wrote: > >> Blocking this as it's a deliberate decision made in D132285 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132285>. >> >> Is there any imperative reason we must really pass the empty struct? The >> C++ standard only treats struct {} as size 1 for the semantics of pointer >> comparison. While there is no pointers to registers, ignoring it in the >> register calling convention will make no harm. >> >> And AFAIK it will be an undefined behavior attempting to (mis)use the >> padding space of/after the empty struct to pass any information. > > Our current modifications are closer to the description of `Itanium C++ ABI`, > and we try to keep it consistent with the description of the calling > convention under `reasonable premise`. Hmm, could you provide a link to the section saying this in the Itanium C++ ABI? I see it has some words about passing or returning an empty class, but there seems no words about passing a class containing an empty class. And for our own psABI, it's easier to simply reword it (making it similar to the RISC-V psABI about passing args with FPRs) instead of modifying both Clang and GCC (causing the code of Clang and GCC more nasty, and both compilers slower, and we'll need to add a -Wpsabi warning at least in GCC too). And it already needs a reword considering empty arrays and zero-width bit-fields anyway. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
