rsmith added a comment. In D63371#1546500 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63371#1546500>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Isn't `[[no_unique_address]]` only significant for empty members? I'm not > sure why they need significant support from constant-building, since they > expand to no meaningful initializer. It also permits reuse of tail padding for non-static data members, which is the complexity that this patch is dealing with (in addition to improving and generalizing the support for non-trivial designated initializers). > We have some code we'll hopefully be upstreaming soon that relies on being > able to do things with address-of-position placeholder values; I'm a little > worried that the new structure here doesn't really support them. Can you say a bit more about that? (Do you want to be able to emit a constant that denotes a pointer to somewhere else within the same constant being emitted, or something like that?) I think this approach should be strictly more general than what we had before, but perhaps that means it can't be extended in the direction you need? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63371/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63371 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
