> The standard has nothing to say about calling convention.

If the ABI refers to the standard, the standard can constrain/manipulate the ABI. Specifically, the standard could say destructors and copy ctors must, under certain conditions, be considered trivial for ABI purposes.

But really, account42 has it right when he talks about co-changes to the language and the ABI - that's the better way to think about it.

> I don't know what else you're implying here.

You're feigning ignorance. I said what I implied.

> Where else do you want it?

In struct fields of course. (Also the corner case of restriction of the "this" pointer, but that could arguably be covered by function parameters + fields)