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


  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: link
Be 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).