rjmccall added a comment. In D62988#1537401 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62988#1537401>, @ahatanak wrote:
> In D62988#1537082 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62988#1537082>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Does this lead to C/C++ ABI mismatches? Should we just honor this in C++ > > as well by ignoring it when deciding to delete special members? Is taking > > such a general name a good idea if it's language-specific? Richard, > > thoughts? > > > This is a C-only attribute, so clang will emit a diagnostic (warning > 'attribute ignored') if the attribute is used to annotate a member of a C++ > union. I think that would be sufficient to prevent possible C/C++ ABI > mismatches? Is there a way to write a C++ union that would be ABI-compatible with a C union with this attribute? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62988/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62988 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
