dblaikie added a comment. I guess the other packed behavior/ABI checking 277123376ce08c98b07c154bf83e4092a5d4d3c6 <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG277123376ce08c98b07c154bf83e4092a5d4d3c6>
In D119051#3715939 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051#3715939>, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In D119051#3714645 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051#3714645>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> Realized maybe we don't need a separate driver flag for this at all, and >> rely only on the abi-compat flag? That seems to be how (at least some) other >> ABI compat changes have been handled, looking at other uses of `ClangABI` >> enum values. > > Agreed, I think this is the better approach. > >> There could be more testing than only the indirect result of the packing >> problem that first inspired this patch. Any suggestions on what might be the >> most direct way to test whether the type's been considered pod in this sense? > > I would have thought use of `__is_pod` would tell us, but I'm not seeing the > behavior described in the test case when using that: > https://godbolt.org/z/1vr3MK4KW Oddly, it seems that > `QualType::isCXX11PODType()` doesn't look at `PlainOldData` at all! What is > your expectation as to how the type trait should be behaving? Oh, yeah, seems @rsmith and I discussed this naming/expectations issue a bit over here previously: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117616#inline-1132622 So I could test this other ways that actually impact layout - like whether things can be packed in tail padding (can pack in tail padding for non-pod, right?). Or we could ast dump and inspect the property directly? Maybe there are some other options? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
