rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGCXXABI.cpp:43
if (RD->hasNonTrivialDestructor())
return false;
----------------
v.g.vassilev wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > Does canPassInRegisters() not subsume all of these earlier checks?
> No, if I remove them here I get a lot of test failures. I cannot move them
> (yet?) in Sema, because I need to call `Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass` in
> `Sema::ActOnFields` to compute the triviality of the decl. Only then it would
> be safe move these checks in `CanPassInRegisters`.
I feel it's pretty unfortunate to name a property "canPassInRegisters" when it
actually means something quite different. People will expect this to mean what
it says.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35056
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
