efriedma-quic wrote: >So I think this supports the notion that this should be a dialect, and we have >to wire defaults differently in MSVC mode as well.
I doubt anyone is intentionally depending on equality here. > C++ does have some restrictions on accessing objects that are being > initialized through other names. It's possible that they're strong enough to > satisfy the ABI rule here through a sort of reverse of the normal analysis: > basically, any program that would violate the ABI rule is actually incorrect > because of the semantic restriction. If not, I think we may need to force > copies of trivial return types in the caller in C++. We can consider that > separately, though. I suspect it isn't legal to actually access the object through another pointer while it's being constructed, but that doesn't help if the user is just doing a pointer equality comparison. And C++17 rules forbid a copy on the caller side: "guaranteed copy elision" means semantically, there is no copy. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101038 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
