rjmccall added a comment. In D61165#1494001 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165#1494001>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D61165#1492830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165#1492830>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > In D61165#1492781 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165#1492781>, @rsmith wrote: > > > > > For the purposes of this patch, I think that means we never need a > > > destructor for the type of a `[[no_destroy]]` variable. > > > > > > Arrays and other subobjects of an aggregate initializaton, unless applying > > the standard "literally" implies the obviously perverse result that we > > don't destroy subobjects in such cases. > > > Yes, but you need the destructors for those subobjects as a side-condition of > the initialization, irrespective of what kind of object that initialization > is initializing. I don't think that's got anything to do with > `[[no_destroy]]`. I think it remains the case that you never need a > destructor for the type of a `[[no_destroy]]` variable. Okay, so the rule should be that `[[no_destroy]]` never requires the destructor for the exact type of the variable, but it might require the destructors of sub-object types of a `static` local that uses aggregate initialization when exceptions are enabled, which necessarily includes the element type of an array. > So far the opinion of folks on the core reflector has unanimously been that > (1) is the right model. And I think that makes sense: it would be somewhat > strange for the initialization of a complete object to be considered complete > after temporaries are destroyed, but the initializations of its subobjects to > be considered complete before the temporaries are destroyed. Okay. I'm not sure that's the decision I would make, but I can accept it, and it certainly simplifies the model in some ways. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
