From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26430 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 14:11:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26423 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 14:11:55 -0000 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040120141155.26422.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "giovannibajo at libero dot it" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040114165645.13683.giovannibajo@libero.it> References: <20040114165645.13683.giovannibajo@libero.it> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/13683] [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg02380.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-01-20 14:11 ------- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote: >> Passing a non-POD object through ellipsis is undefined behaviour >> *if* the call is done. In our situation, there is absolutely no call being >> performed (nor code generated where we abort), so there is no >> undefined behaviour. > I can understand your request in the case of sizeof but I do not > understand it as rephrased as above. How precisely do you define call > being performed or code generated? I was thinking of something along the lines of "potentially evaluated", [basic.def.odr]/2. Anyway, if we both agree on my request for the sizeof() case, I'm happy with it, I'll let you pick my explanation of it which is more correct, or please do provide your own reasoning for this. Giovanni Bajo -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13683