yaxunl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34367#1009021, @rjmccall wrote:
> That's not really okay; there are some places that make guarantees about > call-argument ordering, and in general we want that to be decided at a higher > level, rather than having a particular order forced in corner cases just to > satisfy a lower-level implementation requirement. I see your point. Actually we only need to let CallArg to convey the information that some indirect arg needs a temporary copy. There is already a member NeedsCopy in CallArg. I will see if I can just re-use that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34367 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
