[PATCH] D119051: Extend the C++03 definition of POD to include defaulted functions

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D119051#3714645 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051#3714645>, @dblaikie wrote:

> Realized maybe we don't need a separate driver flag for this at all, and rely only on the abi-compat flag? That seems to be how (at least some) other ABI compat changes have been handled, looking at other uses of `ClangABI` enum values.

Agreed, I think this is the better approach.

> There could be more testing than only the indirect result of the packing problem that first inspired this patch. Any suggestions on what might be the most direct way to test whether the type's been considered pod in this sense?

I would have thought use of `__is_pod` would tell us, but I'm not seeing the behavior described in the test case when using that: https://godbolt.org/z/1vr3MK4KW Oddly, it seems that `QualType::isCXX11PODType()` doesn't look at `PlainOldData` at all! What is your expectation as to how the type trait should be behaving?



================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/class-layout.cpp:2-9
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-apple-darwin    %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions -DCLANG_ABI_COMPAT=14
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-scei-ps4        %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions -DCLANG_ABI_COMPAT=6
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-sie-ps5         %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions -DCLANG_ABI_COMPAT=6
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions -fclang-abi-compat=6 -DCLANG_ABI_COMPAT=6
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions -fclang-abi-compat=14 -DCLANG_ABI_COMPAT=14
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown %s -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 -Wno-inaccessible-base -Wno-c++11-extensions -fclang-abi-compat=15 -DCLANG_ABI_COMPAT=15
----------------
No need for `-Wno-c++11-extensions` on these RUN lines, right (they already specify c++11 specifically, so there are no extensions to warn about)?


================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/class-layout.cpp:663-665
+_Static_assert(_Alignof(t2) == 4, "");
+#else
+_Static_assert(_Alignof(t2) == 1, "");
----------------



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051