This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [C++ PATCH] Don't create an INTEGER_CST for aggregates (empty structs)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 14 Mar 2005 15:50:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Don't create an INTEGER_CST for aggregates (empty structs)
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <9a23c41857b1b1161e9d02c278ba5592@physics.uc.edu><42308EA6.1010408@suse.de><85c98d4cd9d0e7435f8517e9a69ac136@physics.uc.edu><m3ll8ty00m.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><4232B7B4.4040207@suse.de><m364zxgnvm.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><xypy8cruz72.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com>
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
| On 12 Mar 2005 11:27:41 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
|
| > Second, the case of stack-based CPUs, e.g. x86-like.
| > The caller does not need any push of such trailing empty class
| > arguments on stack -- and the callee knows it has no business trying
| > to pop such value. Consequently adjustments need to be done for the
| > stack frame "depth".
|
| This assumes that we control both caller and callee, which violates the
| idea of a standardized ABI.
Well, I think that is an overstatement :-)
If we still allocate "wasted" space but do not do fill them -- as you
suggested earlier -- that would work.
-- Gaby