wangleiat added a comment.
> I think the paragraph means:
>
> class Empty {};
> int test(Empty empty, int a);
>
> Then we should put `a` into `a1`, not `a0`. And we are indeed doing so.
yes. with this patch, `a` will be passed with `a1` register.
> I mean now GCC and Clang have the same behavior, so it's easier to just
> document the behavior in our psABI doc instead of making both Clang and GCC
> rigidly following the interpretation of psABI (which is currently unclear
> about zero-sized fields now) anyway.
>
> And the current behavior of GCC and Clang treating a class containing two
> floating-point members and some empty fields is same as RISC-V, so it's
> highly unlikely we are violating the C++ standard or IA64 C++ ABI (or the
> entire RISC-V ecosystem would be violating them). The only issue is our
> psABI is unclear about empty fields, and the easiest way to solve the issue
> is revising the psABI (maybe, just "borrowing" some paragraphs from RISC-V
> psABI if there is no copyright issue).
If we want to ignore empty structures, it is not enough to only modify psABI,
because the current implementations of gcc and clang do not ignore empty
structures in all cases. For example:
struct { struct{}; int i; }; // in this case, the empty struct is not ignored.
struct { struct{}; float f; }; // ignored.
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
