On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 15:00, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I intentionally exclude C++ specific features in my propose. > > Yet you use a definition from the Itanium C++ ABI which itself depends > on multiple definitions in a particular version of the C++ standard, > which depend on C++ specific features.
Yes, I used this C++ ABI definition to make C++ and C equivalent in empty type definition. > This makes no sense to me. > > Note that triviality of copying/destruction holds for all C types and > is easy to formulate in languages other than C++. (As is the notion of Can you point out which C++ features for empty type with C counter parts aren't covered by "POD for the purpose of layout"? > an aggregate requiring no storage, other than padding. The whole > argument about array parameters seems a bit silly since this is mere > syntax sugar, C/C++ do not support passing an actual array by value.) > > Matthijs van Duin -- H.J. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
