probinson added a comment. In D134507#3818765 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134507#3818765>, @ychen wrote:
> In D134507#3817928 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134507#3817928>, @probinson > wrote: > >> It feels odd to use a ClangABI check for something that is affecting what >> source is accepted, but this is not my area of expertise. >> @aaron.ballman or @rjmccall would probably be the right people to weigh in >> on this. > > This was discussed here https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#inline-1244757. > Yeah, it is somewhat confusing to key the legacy language behavior on > ClangABI. I'm not sure there are better choices than inventing new flags. Right, which points to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp#L9786 concerning the treatment of copy constructors. But those at least can feed into how one goes about conjuring up calling sequences involving parameters of types that might have to invoke those constructors, and so that case seems a lot more ABI-relevant than subtle details about template parameter packs. Anyway, I'm going to step out of this now, I don't have the expertise to review this responsibly. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134507/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134507 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
