rsmith added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45382#1060452, @ahatanak wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45382#1060163, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Hmm. I'm not actually sure *why* it's not okay to forward callee-cleanup > > arguments. Do we just not have the necessary logic to disable the cleanup > > in the caller? > > > It seems that it would be OK if there was a way to disable the cleanup in the > caller when we know that we are delegating to another constructor, possibly > by setting the DelegateCXXConstructorCall here too. But maybe there are other > reasons for not doing so. > > Perhaps Richard (who committed r274049) knows why we can't call the delegated > constructor when there are callee-cleanup arguments? I think the only reason was that we didn't have a good way to handle cleanup emission in the thunk (as @rjmccall points out, we do need parameter cleanups in the thunk, but we need to disable them at the point of the call to the inherited constructor). I cannot think of any correctness reason that prevents using a thunk for the callee-cleanup case. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D45382 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
