RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct

[H.J. Lu via cfe-commits]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Matthijs van Duin
<matthijsvanduin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 15:00, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I intentionally exclude C++ specific features in my propose.
>
> Yet you use a definition from the Itanium C++ ABI which itself depends
> on multiple definitions in a particular version of the C++ standard,
> which depend on C++ specific features.

Yes, I used this C++ ABI definition to make C++ and C equivalent in
empty type definition.

> This makes no sense to me.
>
> Note that triviality of copying/destruction holds for all C types and
> is easy to formulate in languages other than C++. (As is the notion of

Can you point out which C++ features for empty type with C counter parts
aren't covered by "POD for the purpose of layout"?

> an aggregate requiring no storage, other than padding. The whole
> argument about array parameters seems a bit silly since this is mere
> syntax sugar, C/C++ do not support passing an actual array by value.)
>
> Matthijs van Duin



-- 
H.J.