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 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
