This is needed because whether the constructor is deleted can control whether
we pass structs by value directly.
To fix this properly we probably want a more direct way for CodeGen to ask
whether the constructor was deleted.
Fixes PR31049.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26822
llvm-svn: 287600
This undoes half of r208786.
It had problems with lazily declared special members in cases like this:
struct A {
A();
A &operator=(A &&o);
void *p;
};
void foo(A);
void bar() {
foo({});
}
In this case, the copy and move constructors are implicitly deleted.
However, Clang doesn't eagerly declare the copy ctor in the AST, so we
pass the struct in registers. Furthermore, GCC passes this in registers
even though this class should be uncopyable.
Revert this for now until the dust settles.
llvm-svn: 208836
This affects both the Itanium and Microsoft C++ ABIs.
This is in anticipation of a change to the Itanium C++ ABI, and should
match GCC's current behavior. The new text will likely be:
"""
Pass an object of class type by value if every copy constructor and
move constructor is deleted or trivial and at least one of them is not
deleted, and the destructor is trivial.
"""
http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/2014-May/002728.html
On x86 Windows, we can mostly use the same logic, where we use inalloca
instead of passing by address. However, on Win64, there are register
parameters, and we have to do what MSVC does. MSVC ignores the presence
of non-trivial move constructors and only considers the presence of
non-trivial or deleted copy constructors. If a non-trivial or deleted
copy ctor is present, it passes the argument indirectly.
This change fixes bugs and makes us more ABI compatible with both GCC
and MSVC.
Fixes PR19668.
Reviewers: rsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D3660
llvm-svn: 208786
Peter Collingbourne