[libcxx] r216909 - Fix PR#20834 - 'is_trivially_destructible yeilds wrong answer for arrays of unknown bound' Thanks to K-ballo for the bug report. Update a few of the other tests while we're here, and fix a typo in a test name.

[Argyrios Kyrtzidis]

> On Oct 1, 2014, at 4:52 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <kyrtzidis at apple.com <mailto:kyrtzidis at apple.com>> wrote:
>> + John
>> 
>> John, could you advice here ?
>> 
>>> On Oct 1, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com <mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com <mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Richard Smith pointed out that destroying a pointer to an objective-C class might require an ARC call, and so the compiler needs to see the type to figure out if it is_destructible.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that is_destructible<ObjCForwardClass**>::value is true, so it’s just pointers to objective-C objects, not pointers in general.
>>> 
>>> Richard also pointed me to: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#retainable-object-pointers <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#retainable-object-pointers>
>>> 
>>> So, while I agree with Argyrios that this changed the behavior of is_trivially_destructible for forward-declared objective-C classes,
>>> I am now convinced that the old behavior was incorrect, and the new behavior is “better”.
>>> 
>>> One could argue that a forward-declared objective-C class is not a complete type, since the compiler doesn’t know how to destroy it, and if so, then is_destructible is not required to give any answer at all ("T shall be a complete type”).
> 
> Pointers to forward-declared Objective-C classes are still complete types.  They should be both destructible and (outside of ARC) non-trivially destructible.
> 
> I assume the problem here is ObjC property syntax, which usually looks like “foo.prop” where foo has ObjC pointer type.  Type-checking a property access really does require the type to be complete.  However, pseudo-destructor calls are not property accesses, and should not require the pointee type to be complete.
> 
> Does that answer your question?

Are you suggesting that we make compiler changes to accept the pseudo-destructor call for ObjC pointers, and if yes, what would the codegen behavior be for ARC ?

> 
> John.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20141001/3a33e441/attachment.html>