Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:07:24 +0000
On Tuesday, October 28, 2025, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
The current specification allows for trivial relocation of polymorphic
> types, on *any* platform. Polymorphism simply isn't taken into account when
> deciding whether a class is trivially relocatable or not:
> struct PolyTR {
> virtual void f();
> };
>
> static_assert( std::is_polymorphic_v<PolyTR> );
> static_assert( std::is_trivially_relocatable_v<PolyTR> ); // OK,
> everywhere
>
We need an arm64e compiler-and-executor up on GodBolt. We need to be able
to test all this stuff out.
Can someone please talk to Matthew Godbolt and ask if this can be made
available? Arthur I think you've had compilers added? We really need this .
. . before the talk on November 5th about trivial relocation.
I'd tried setting up virtual machines and Qemu and cross-compiling and the
like, but haven't got a viable arm64e compiler and executor working. Plus
those new Apple computers are expensive.
The current specification allows for trivial relocation of polymorphic
> types, on *any* platform. Polymorphism simply isn't taken into account when
> deciding whether a class is trivially relocatable or not:
> struct PolyTR {
> virtual void f();
> };
>
> static_assert( std::is_polymorphic_v<PolyTR> );
> static_assert( std::is_trivially_relocatable_v<PolyTR> ); // OK,
> everywhere
>
We need an arm64e compiler-and-executor up on GodBolt. We need to be able
to test all this stuff out.
Can someone please talk to Matthew Godbolt and ask if this can be made
available? Arthur I think you've had compilers added? We really need this .
. . before the talk on November 5th about trivial relocation.
I'd tried setting up virtual machines and Qemu and cross-compiling and the
like, but haven't got a viable arm64e compiler and executor working. Plus
those new Apple computers are expensive.
Received on 2025-10-29 10:07:26
