ahatanak added a comment. It seems like you are discussing the case where a class/struct annotated with `trivial_abi` contains a member that isn't destructively movable. In that case, clang correctly diagnoses it today. For example, if you remove the attribute from `S2` in the above example and add it to `S3` instead, it warns that `trivial_abi` cannot be applied to `S3` because `S2` is a non-trivial class type.
What I wasn't sure was whether `S1` (which isn't annotated with `trivial_abi` in the original code I posted) should be treated as a destructively movable type despite having all its copy/move constructors deleted when its only member (`s0`) is destructively movable. Based on the discussion we had a few years ago (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2017-November/055966.html), I think the answer is yes, but I just wanted to confirm. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92361/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92361 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
