rjmccall added a comment. As far as I'm concerned as editor of the Itanium ABI, the ABI treatment of trivial-for-the-purposes-of-calls classes is purely a psABI matter, and the Itanium ABI's wording around empty classes is merely a suggestion if the psABI doesn't have more specific rules (because empty structs are normally invalid in C). Do what you think is best for your ABI.
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
