This reverts commit https://reviews.llvm.org/rL344150 which causes
MachineOutliner related failures on the ppc64le multistage buildbot.
llvm-svn: 344526
This is currently a clang extension and a resolution
of the defect report in the C++ Standard.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46441
llvm-svn: 344150
registers.
This patch fixes a bug in r328731 that caused structs transitively
containing __weak fields to be passed in registers. The patch replaces
the flag RecordDecl::CanPassInRegisters with a 2-bit enum that indicates
whether the struct or structs containing the struct are forced to be
passed indirectly.
This reapplies r329617. r329617 didn't specify the underlying type for
enum ArgPassingKind, which caused regression tests to fail on a windows
bot.
rdar://problem/39194693
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45384
llvm-svn: 329635
registers.
This patch fixes a bug in r328731 that caused structs transitively
containing __weak fields to be passed in registers. The patch replaces
the flag RecordDecl::CanPassInRegisters with a 2-bit enum that indicates
whether the struct or structs containing the struct are forced to be
passed indirectly.
rdar://problem/39194693
llvm-svn: 329617
ObjC and ObjC++ pass non-trivial structs in a way that is incompatible
with each other. For example:
typedef struct {
id f0;
__weak id f1;
} S;
// this code is compiled in c++.
extern "C" {
void foo(S s);
}
void caller() {
// the caller passes the parameter indirectly and destructs it.
foo(S());
}
// this function is compiled in c.
// 'a' is passed directly and is destructed in the callee.
void foo(S a) {
}
This patch fixes the incompatibility by passing and returning structs
with __strong or weak fields using the C ABI in C++ mode. __strong and
__weak fields in a struct do not cause the struct to be destructed in
the caller and __strong fields do not cause the struct to be passed
indirectly.
Also, this patch fixes the microsoft ABI bug mentioned here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41039?id=128767#inline-364710
rdar://problem/38887866
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44908
llvm-svn: 328731