[PATCH] D61165: Fix a crash where a [[no_destroy]] destructor was not emitted in an array

John McCall via Phabricator via cfe-commits cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Apr 26 14:39:08 PDT 2019

rjmccall added a comment.

I believe at least one of the goals of `nodestroy` is to allow the type to potentially not provide a destructor at all, so if we're going to implicitly require the destructor anyway in certain situations, we should clearly document that, and we should be aware that we may be making the attribute less useful.

Since I believe the dominant use-case here is a true global, does only requiring the destructor for arrays in the static-local case when exceptions are enabled at least make it acceptable to do proper access checking, or is that still a source-compatibility problem for existing clients?

  rC Clang



More information about the cfe-commits mailing list