rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36501#852864, @rjmccall wrote:
> The only thing I would say here is that, as a platform vendor, I would like > the ability to opt in to ABI fixes that aren't in my base-line version. In > particular, we're generally more aggressive about taking C++ ABI fixes on > Darwin when there's a strong argument that the impact is likely to be low, > like for some of these indirect-ABI cases that only make a difference for > classes with e.g. only deleted copy/move constructors but a trivial > destructor. I don't think the idea of a base-line version matches with the direction of the patch, and I've removed the part of the patch that has a base-line Clang version for PS4. I think that if your platform ABI dictates that you do thing X differently from, say, the x86_64 psABI or the Itanium C++ ABI, then that's simply part of your platform ABI, and not a clang compatibility feature, regardless of whether the historical reason your platform ABI made that choice was due to clang compatibility. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D36501 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
