[cfe-dev] Lambdas and the ABI?

[Richard Smith via cfe-dev]

On 21 Mar 2017 12:23 pm, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:06 PM Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> On 03/21/2017 08:45 AM, Hubert Tong wrote:
>
> This question was explored in an other context here:
> http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/2013-January/002544.html
>
>
> Very interesting, thanks! So the conclusion was that, " The ABI will need
> to specify the layout of closure types with weak linkage."
>

Are you basing that on what the document does or the discussion in the
thread? Because I don't really see a conclusion in the thread. I see John
pointing out three options and suggestion one which is not what you claim
is the conclusion here:
http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/2013-January/002544.html

I don't see any real disagreement but I also don't see any real discussion
past that email and brief follow-ups....


I expect John's #1 is most likely to be the eventual outcome; #2 and #3 are
too restrictive. Plus the language is moving in a direction that makes the
capture set much easier to reliably compute, so the cost of #1 is going to
become much more like "don't do those optimisations you weren't really
doing much anyway" and much less "accurately implement these arcane and
formally unobservable rules or you violate the ABI".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170321/d678f14f/attachment.html>