public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "timb at bluearc dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/17519] [3.4/4.0 Regression] Warning for array of packed non-POD in packed struct Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:51:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20050127175040.439.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040916121035.17519.timb@bluearc.com> ------- Additional Comments From timb at bluearc dot com 2005-01-27 17:50 ------- There's certainly a good case for warning about packing that's likely not to have the desired results - we've been bitten by that before. But that doesn't really apply to all non-POD; you can define a subset safe-non-POD (broadly speaking, no virtual functions/bases and (recursively) no unsafe non-static data members) where everything still has reasonably predictable representations and you don't need extra space for polymorphism magic. So if you do go in that direction, please consider separate warnings for those non-POD types that can nevertheless safely be packed and those that can't. Classes made non-POD through fairly innoccuous constructions - e.g. constructors, simple inheritance - are often useful in abstracting hardware registers, data formats, etc. We'd be swamped in warnings if we got one for every packed non-POD, but we definitely do want to know if there's something that's actually going to mess things up. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17519
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-27 17:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-09-16 12:10 [Bug c++/17519] New: " timb at bluearc dot com 2004-09-23 1:41 ` [Bug c++/17519] [3.4/4.0 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-01 0:46 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 0:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-27 17:51 ` timb at bluearc dot com [this message] 2005-02-14 15:51 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-28 23:05 ` [Bug c++/17519] [3.4/4.0/4.1 " timb at bluearc dot com 2005-05-19 17:49 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22 21:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-27 16:21 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20050127175040.439.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).