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: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists dot llvm dot org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 18:26:56 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOofYT89yzF6jxFZFG2=QVQuQpEC7DP0HV_epjeawCf_sA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87d1s8wc4w dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOp_6ZpR1YSJZ7AiLpa+FPRGJoLm5fTPkiH5BgF4Tkg3RA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87r3gouvv2 dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOo2tPZKZEgpgFbbSnkyBiONzS9vfntn_QsxRPbVHZGmUw at mail dot gmail dot com> <87k2mgutzr dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <CAMe9rOoMujhjExxKWrz-Dv8uE33X=Upvi_X_HZsfeN0GS+=56A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOruCOvtM2D2AmG94A1_8Og8Kfu7tYF4De=XNfzUG+eh5g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQci21ZhZ4odOfJRjC8s8HjuJ5X73LfK6oqvxCtOnzK6w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOpJXNUNvusTmwFb3riOxXyXLTGTquSMKqZkBe=nbmt_QQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQcvj7EY3jXgtUBQePfikiTbcuqsNFpDH7SWyxD628peQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOrsV-zohnj=31_DDYSxUDyRDYL0anTi_NJm5vqogF9URQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A type is a standard-layout type, or it isn't.
>>>
>>> How about "An empty record is standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD)
>>> type and ..."?
>>
>> That's redundant, all POD types are standard-layout types.
>>
>
> Apparently, not all standard-layout types are POD types. GCC has
>
> /* Nonzero means that this class type is not POD for the purpose of layout
> (as defined in the ABI). This is different from the language's POD. */
> CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P
>
> and
>
> /* Nonzero means that this class type is a non-standard-layout class. */
> #define CLASSTYPE_NON_STD_LAYOUT
>
> They aren't the same.
>
> struct A { };
> struct B { };
> struct C : A, B { };
>
> C is a standard-layout type, but not a standard-layout POD type.
As the comment says, "POD for the purposes of layout" is different
from the language's POD. All standard-layout types are POD types
according to the language.
So when you previously had "POD for the purposes of layout" that was
at least partially clear that you meant something other than what the
language means. But as pointed out, using a GCC-specific term is not
ideal.
When you changed it to "POD for the purpose of standard-layout" that
became a completely meaningless term. Where is that defined?
Your next suggestion was "standard-layout Plain Old Data (POD)" which
is even worse, now you're using two terms defined by the C++ language,
but you mean something different.
When you mean something that is the same as the language (like "class
type") it makes sense to use the same term.
When you mean something that is not the same as the language (like
"POD") it makes sense to use a different term, or clearly define how
you are using it.
- References:
- 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
- Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct