erik.pilkington planned changes to this revision. erik.pilkington added a comment.
In D61165#1480976 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165#1480976>, @rjmccall wrote: > I believe at least one of the goals of `nodestroy` is to allow the type to > potentially not provide a destructor at all, so if we're going to implicitly > require the destructor anyway in certain situations, we should clearly > document that, and we should be aware that we may be making the attribute > less useful. > > Since I believe the dominant use-case here is a true global, does only > requiring the destructor for arrays in the static-local case when exceptions > are enabled at least make it acceptable to do proper access checking, or is > that still a source-compatibility problem for existing clients? It's hard to say exactly how bad the source compatibility problem is, we haven't been pushing on this much internally (yet), so I doubt we'll run into any issues. There was included in an open-source release though. If we only checked access when we needed it, the sequence of steps to actually break anything is pretty far: you'd have to have a type with a private dtor, used in a static local array, with the attribute, and be compiling with exceptions. I'd actually be quite surprised if we ran into any issues, so I guess we should do the right thing with access checking. I'll update the patch and the docs. Repository: rC Clang 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
