On Thu, 26 May 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/05/16 14:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/05/16 20:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ping
(re-attaching, I just added a one-line comment before the tag class as
asked by Ville)
This is OK for trunk - thanks.
On second thoughts - does this change the passing conventions for
std::tuple if it gets a trivial move ctor?
Note that this part of the ABI is ill-defined
http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/2016-February/002884.html
but yes, good catch, it does change the passing convention (by value), and
not just for weirdo types, it even changes for tuple<int>. It is clearly a
change in the right direction, not passing tuple<int> in a register is
weird, but yeah, compatibility :-(
I don't even want to think of trying to fix this issue in C++11 while
artificially preserving the non-triviality of tuple, the headache is not
worth it. I guess I'll open an entry in bugzilla with the ABI tag and let
it rot there...
Maybe we could
#if __cpp_concepts >= 201500
the alternative discussed with Ville
#endif
but that won't fix the fact that tuple<int> should be trivially move
constructible...
We could add __attribute__(non_trivial_for_purpose_of_passing_convention),
but I think abi_tag has already stretched enough the idea that gcc is
following the itanium abi.
Bah, forget this patch. Thanks for noticing early, that spares me the
trouble of reverting later.
--
Marc Glisse
