wangleiat added a comment. In D151298#4367163 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298#4367163>, @xry111 wrote:
> Blocking this as it's a deliberate decision made in D132285 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132285>. > > Is there any imperative reason we must really pass the empty struct? The C++ > standard only treats struct {} as size 1 for the semantics of pointer > comparison. While there is no pointers to registers, ignoring it in the > register calling convention will make no harm. > > And AFAIK it will be an undefined behavior attempting to (mis)use the padding > space of/after the empty struct to pass any information. In D151298#4367163 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298#4367163>, @xry111 wrote: > Blocking this as it's a deliberate decision made in D132285 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132285>. > > Is there any imperative reason we must really pass the empty struct? The C++ > standard only treats struct {} as size 1 for the semantics of pointer > comparison. While there is no pointers to registers, ignoring it in the > register calling convention will make no harm. > > And AFAIK it will be an undefined behavior attempting to (mis)use the padding > space of/after the empty struct to pass any information. Our current modifications are closer to the description of `Itanium C++ ABI`, and we try to keep it consistent with the description of the calling convention under `reasonable premise`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151298 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
