Comparing GCC and Clang security features

Posted Sep 17, 2019 2:48 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
In reply to: Comparing GCC and Clang security features by alonz
Parent article: Comparing GCC and Clang security features

C++ isn't ideal for implementing wrappers around integer types. It's too easy for your wrapper type to be "non-trivial for the purposes of calls" (http://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#non-tri...), in which case function parameters and results of that type must be passed by reference instead of by value, imposing significant performance penalties in some cases.

Comparing GCC and Clang security features

Posted Sep 17, 2019 13:10 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

While that can be true in general, it won't be for an integer wrapping type. There is no reason to write a custom move/copy constructor, or destructor, for such a type.

Additionally, if you're ok using a compiler extension, Clang has an attribute that can be used to force trivial abi, if you do have a type which can be passed in registers despite having non-trivial constructors/destructors: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#trivi...