r350920 - [Sema] Make canPassInRegisters return true if the CXXRecordDecl passed

Hans Wennborg via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 1 02:57:03 PST 2019


Thanks! I've merged r352822 to the branch in r352855.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 1:37 AM Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> wrote:
>
> +Hans for managing the 8.0 branch.
>
> On 1/31/19, 4:15 PM, "ahatanaka at apple.com on behalf of Akira Hatanaka" <ahatanaka at apple.com> wrote:
>
>     Reverted patch in r352822. I’ll send a new patch later that disallows trivial_abi on classes without non-deleted copy or move constructors.
>
>     > On Jan 31, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>     >
>     > Given that there's uncertainty as to how to proceed and this patch
>     > affects the ABI, I would prefer that we revert it for trunk and 8.0.
>     >
>     > The suggested alternative of disallowing trivial_abi in the case where
>     > all copy/move constructors are deleted seems reasonable to me.
>     >
>     > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 14:31, Shoaib Meenai via cfe-commits
>     > <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Just wanted to point out that r350920 is on the 8.0 release branch as well. I don't know if there are any additional considerations there.
>     >>
>     >> On 1/31/19, 2:20 PM, "cfe-commits on behalf of John McCall via cfe-commits" <cfe-commits-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>    On 31 Jan 2019, at 16:57, Akira Hatanaka wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> Would it be better if we disallowed trivial_abi if the class’ copy
>     >>> and move destructors were all deleted (and revert r350920)? I think
>     >>> that would make it easier to reason about when you are allowed to use
>     >>> trivial_abi and what effect the attribute has (which is to override
>     >>> the trivialness for the purpose of calls).
>     >>>
>     >>> Sorry for my late reply. It took a while to understand that the patch
>     >>> I committed might not be the right way to fix the problem.
>     >>
>     >>    I'd be fine with that.  If nothing else, we can generalize it later if
>     >>    we decide that's an important use-case.
>     >>
>     >>    John.
>     >>
>     >>>
>     >>>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 8:37 PM, John McCall via cfe-commits
>     >>>> <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 20:03, Richard Smith wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 16:20, John McCall via cfe-commits <
>     >>>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 18:32, Richard Smith wrote:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 09:10, John McCall via cfe-commits <
>     >>>>>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 9:13, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:57 AM Akira Hatanaka
>     >>>>>>>>> <ahatanaka at apple.com>
>     >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>     >>>>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>>> Yes, the behavior of the compiler doesn’t match what’s
>     >>>>>>>>>> explained
>     >>>>>>>>>> in the documentation anymore.
>     >>>>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>>> Please take a look at the attached patch, which updates the
>     >>>>>>>>>> documentation.
>     >>>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>> Patch mostly LGTM, but I did have one wording suggestion.
>     >>>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
>     >>>>>>>>>> b/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
>     >>>>>>>>>> index 5773a92c9c..ca3cfcf9b2 100644
>     >>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
>     >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td
>     >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2478,15 +2478,20 @@ def TrivialABIDocs : Documentation {
>     >>>>>>>>>>  let Category = DocCatVariable;
>     >>>>>>>>>>  let Content = [{
>     >>>>>>>>>> The ``trivial_abi`` attribute can be applied to a C++ class,
>     >>>>>>>>>> struct,
>     >>>>>>>>>> or union.
>     >>>>>>>>>> -It instructs the compiler to pass and return the type using
>     >>>>>>>>>> the C
>     >>>>>>>>>> ABI for the
>     >>>>>>>>>> +``trivial_abi`` has the following effects:
>     >>>>>>>>>> +
>     >>>>>>>>>> +- It instructs the compiler to pass and return the type using
>     >>>>>>>>>> the C
>     >>>>>>>>>> ABI for the
>     >>>>>>>>>> underlying type when the type would otherwise be considered
>     >>>>>>>>>> non-trivial for the
>     >>>>>>>>>> purpose of calls.
>     >>>>>>>>>> -A class annotated with `trivial_abi` can have non-trivial
>     >>>>>>>>>> destructors or copy/move constructors without automatically
>     >>>>>>>>>> becoming
>     >>>>>>>>>> non-trivial for the purposes of calls. For example:
>     >>>>>>>>>> +- It makes the destructor and copy and move constructors of
>     >>>>>>>>>> the
>     >>>>>>>>>> class trivial
>     >>>>>>>>>> +that would otherwise be considered non-trivial under the C++
>     >>>>>>>>>> ABI
>     >>>>>>>>>> rules.
>     >>>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>> How about: It makes the destructor, copy constructors, and move
>     >>>>>>>>> constructors of the class trivial even if they would otherwise
>     >>>>>>>>> be
>     >>>>>>>>> non-trivial under the C++ ABI rules.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> Let's not say that it makes them trivial, because it doesn't.  It
>     >>>>>>>> causes
>     >>>>>>>> their immediate non-triviality to be ignored for the purposes of
>     >>>>>>>> deciding
>     >>>>>>>> whether the type can be passed in registers.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Given the attribute now forces the type to be passed in registers,
>     >>>>>>> I
>     >>>>>> think
>     >>>>>>> it'd be more to the point to say that it makes the triviality of
>     >>>>>>> those
>     >>>>>>> special members be ignored when deciding whether to pass a type
>     >>>>>>> with a
>     >>>>>>> subobject of this type in registers.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Wait, it forces it to be passed in registers?  I thought the design
>     >>>>>> was that it didn't override the non-trivial-abi-ness of subobjects;
>     >>>>>> see all the discussion of trivially_relocatable.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The attribute is ill-formed if applied to a class that has a
>     >>>>> subobject that
>     >>>>> can't be passed in registers (or that has a vptr). And then as a
>     >>>>> weird
>     >>>>> special case we don't instantiate the attribute when instantiating a
>     >>>>> class
>     >>>>> if it would be ill-formed (well, we instantiate it and then remove
>     >>>>> it
>     >>>>> again, but the effect is the same).
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The commit at the start of this email chain switches us from the
>     >>>>> "just
>     >>>>> override the trivialness for the purposes of the ABI" model to
>     >>>>> /also/
>     >>>>> forcing the type to be passed in registers (the type would otherwise
>     >>>>> not be
>     >>>>> passed in registers in some corner cases, such as if all its
>     >>>>> copy/move
>     >>>>> special members are deleted).
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I see.  Alright, I accept your wording, then.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> John.
>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>     >>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org>
>     >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Dcommits&d=DwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=ywn0RCUoTpZm8YOV2ffRUUVgMx3xapVXDF-yihR7ycI&s=P5RqazYFOIlJWDGViplbmVcGCnxco2SFRE8jbjEiVIY&e=
>     >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Dcommits&d=DwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=ywn0RCUoTpZm8YOV2ffRUUVgMx3xapVXDF-yihR7ycI&s=P5RqazYFOIlJWDGViplbmVcGCnxco2SFRE8jbjEiVIY&e=>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>    _______________________________________________
>     >>    cfe-commits mailing list
>     >>    cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>     >>    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Dcommits&d=DwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=ywn0RCUoTpZm8YOV2ffRUUVgMx3xapVXDF-yihR7ycI&s=RqlQW1jluoVzRIWOqcAMcLk2-6YMFlflJblR_OplhVw&e=
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> cfe-commits mailing list
>     >> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
>     >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_cfe-2Dcommits&d=DwIFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=g5EPqCUh5saO6axHZfXGpX8kSZZLUbixkcCIR9Lcc9o&s=NhJSDmoJK2gLjExO78nxiJS_w5UwzGvCIuEO4zaUVRI&e=
>
>
>


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list