rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45384#1060192, @ahatanak wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45384#1060164, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Well, but I think CanPassInRegisters==false in the base class does always > > mean CanPassInRegisters==false in the subclass. > > > I think there are cases that is not true. If I compile the following code, S0 > (base class) is passed indirectly and S1 (derived class) is passed directly. Yes, I think you're right. That's exciting. So "cannot pass in registers" is tracking whether there's a primitive reason that the class cannot be passed in registers, something that's above and beyond the C++ rules? Okay. ================ Comment at: include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h:486 + /// for this class to be passed in registers. + unsigned CannotPassInRegisters : 1; + ---------------- You should definitely explain the semantic difference with CanPassInRegisters in this comment, and I think the field/method names should underline that. Maybe this is a place to pull out "Primitive" again? Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D45384 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
