https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #11 from Niels Möller ---
Here's a bit more docs on using std::unique_ptr [[clang::trivial_abi]] with
clang and its C++ library.
https://libcxx.llvm.org//DesignDocs/UniquePtrTrivialAbi.html
As for "No, it needs co-operation between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #10 from Niels Möller ---
I was just made aware of this paper:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1863r0.pdf
arguing that C++ standards community and implementers ought to decide on how to
prioritize C++ perfor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> you'd still need a change to the Itanium ABI.
Or an attribute like [[clang::trivial_abi]], or the one that p1029 is trying to
standardize. But since we would nee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, when configured with --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace
But that's just for the library, you'd still need a change to the Itanium ABI.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> libstdc++ would not take
> advantage of it because it would break the library's stable ABI.
There is always this mode (is it _GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION? I thought I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
No, it needs co-operation between G++ and all other compilers using the same
ABI, which makes it out of scope for GCC's bugzilla. G++ cannot unilaterally
change the ABI here, and even if we could, libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #5 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Why wouldn't you take unique_ptr&& instead of passing by value?
Because passing unique_ptr (and other move-only types) by value seems to be the
mainstream idiom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> > The ABI dictates the calling conventions and there's certainly nothing that
> > libstdc++ can do about it.
>
> My
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #2 from Niels Möller ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The ABI dictates the calling conventions and there's certainly nothing that
> libstdc++ can do about it.
My impression was that C++ ABI is under the control of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The ABI dictates the calling conventions and there's certainly nothing that
libstdc++ can do about it.
In any case, how common is it to have a pointless non-inline baz function which
does nothing but forwa
11 matches
Mail list logo
