Hi,

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jason Merrill wrote:

> > Also this insistence that all of "trivially copyable" is already quite 
> > nicely specified in the C++ ABI is still not really relevant because 
> > C++ _is not the only language out there_.  I'm not sure how often I 
> > have to repeat this until people get it.
> 
> Other language ABIs can handle language specific calling conventions as 
> appropriate for them.  The psABI can only talk about things that are in 
> its domain.

Naturally.  How far to follow that road, though?  Remove the word "class" 
from the description of empty types again?  Why is that in-domain and the 
notion of trivially copyable isn't?


Ciao,
Michael.