yiranwang added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12247#233349, @EricWF wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12247#233323, @davidxl wrote: > > > We certainly need a fix without breaking ABI. Is there a ABI conformance > > test for libcxx? > > > Well this patch definitely breaks the ABI. This was my attempt at fixing the > problem in `std::function` that might not be ABI breaking.. > https://gist.github.com/EricWF/3a35b140a66d4826a9 I think following your thought, we should abandon the usage of "aligned_storage" in "function" totally. Instead, just say "void *__buf_[3];", and check alignment_of _Fp (can be arbitrarily big, but usually small), and sizeof the two to guard use of __buf_. The alignment bump to 16 by aligned_storage on AARCH64 is not what we want, performance wise. Also, such kind of change need to applied for some more places, at least in libc++, such like <libcxx/include/future> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12247 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
