This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Smith <richard at metafoo dot co dot uk>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists dot llvm dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:58:19 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOrsV-zohnj=31_DDYSxUDyRDYL0anTi_NJm5vqogF9URQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQtnzMO6gLLRsczDdvmx0exkqXxyY-WvZ6RjuM7a3=85A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQQjpOwD2kNCZVjH+w6N0Wh=gbdaaCcjg21iEbaHaAE5A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOq5QL9J0F-isO1njJyDJcZ08gF4zUk4vXNONWSfUtSzwA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdR0vJkYuYeKU=zyhthOY0KT-m8C=m2AtZ5GfVeyPOA=jw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAOfiQqmKnONCdEi=coKaAKO_0Ux5X1BdYZ5t98gCU+LN21xKvw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTxMXA7BEEHB7y6c5dRG_Hur5=CmdrQWMRn3zRGHnGZuA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOr9CCDjVVdYq7SoCDewg6uLnegEvT3Rrf2jg05SSyM_GQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAOfiQqnK-MFNhjcnHPPBpFfcJxR5rkdj26x8HcfMOiibCtevXA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOpM5Cs4zthCTAyaBEx3TWAQ7QNKv=k9mrqNzvj-upGcUw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160211104729 dot GA3522 at squirrel dot local> <CAMe9rOrVQ2RJJVwKio_yxjGaj8RXcu5oS6K55EWQ0K5xHPtn_Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAALWOA_9JdscgL+_1R4RToSOKdwEmS2+P5fctF4RDayjZUS4GA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Matthijs van Duin
<matthijsvanduin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 11:53, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since this isn't Plain Old Data (POD) for the purposes of layout, it
>> isn't covered by my proposal for psABI. I leave this to C++ ABI.
>
> You never define "POD for the purposes of layout", and I can only
> interpret it as being equivalent to "standard-layout". The property of
> being trivially copyable/destructible is not a statement about layout
> and my EmptyInt example is POD in every other aspect.
"POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here:
http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions
--
H.J.
- References:
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct