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: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, cfe-commits at lists dot llvm dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:43:39 +0100 (CET)
- 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> <CAMe9rOrTgYha0Kvj5Uro2hhpsaPuFmL=ztLcR1J=rP0amLn8ow at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAOfiQq=zf9Ge3aBYGcKwvzLN9uZJ7n19UL43_VGAasR7ADZVOA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrGr1_Gq-1QEuScs65S48Me8JNWGLekjA8OtzjAaWQ8tA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAOfiQqnQtJLNoa_aXtxeOiPQAJ6F7Grut14S9OyoUdvdAnUZuQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602221347130 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOqpMGOMORELX3-E6wUOcdGGkHysSBi9GFFHdHTv1es68w at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602231618080 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOqPD_=AaaaFFnNvpEJ5N5g6vtfQvZbAh5NC=Wv4VX0gdA at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602231706530 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <CAMe9rOodKH1HXoTyd5j+jXui9ByzHVw3O1wEGYADtRT6D+sw8g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAOfiQq=2r7b7nkSU5rhhfur8xoDXQkrnYv9y-6BmRg8zxU8ncQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqLrC1HDfevQNBnocMO+a83ZzYD=++XExeOuXTP1Fsj=A at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1602291559180 dot 20277 at wotan dot suse dot de> <56D4C87D dot 1090307 at redhat dot com>
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.