efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/MicrosoftCXXABI.cpp:1077
-static bool hasMicrosoftABIRestrictions(const CXXRecordDecl *RD) {
+static bool isCXX14Aggregate(const CXXRecordDecl *RD) {
// For AArch64, we use the C++14 definition of an aggregate, so we also
----------------
This is just reversing the result of the function, I guess.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/MicrosoftCXXABI.cpp:1108
+ bool isTrivialForABI =
+ RD->canPassInRegisters() && !(isAArch64 && !isCXX14Aggregate(RD));
bool isIndirectReturn =
----------------
isTrivialForABI is only used if isAArch64 is true, so it shouldn't use
isTrivialForABI as part of its computation, I think?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/MicrosoftCXXABI.cpp:1110
bool isIndirectReturn =
- isAArch64 ? (!RD->canPassInRegisters() ||
- IsSizeGreaterThan128(RD))
- : !RD->isPOD();
+ isAArch64 ? (!isTrivialForABI || IsSizeGreaterThan128(RD)) :
!RD->isPOD();
bool isInstanceMethod = FI.isInstanceMethod();
----------------
I suspect that the IsSizeGreaterThan128() check shouldn't be here. Can we rely
on the C ABI rules for that?
For non-AArch64, is it really correct to use isPOD()? That varies based on the
language version, no?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89362/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89362
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
