From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29998 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2006 04:31:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 29971 invoked by uid 48); 16 Mar 2006 04:31:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060316043141.29970.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/13983] no warning on some non-POD struct with packed attribute In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mdorey at bluearc dot com" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg01665.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #8 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2006-03-16 04:31 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Nathan could you comment on this bug. Two years with no comment. Is it because the Severity is set to Enhancement? I'm convinced that the warning is incorrect, not missing, so I think the Severity should be Normal and (perhaps) the Summary shouldn't say "no warning". Perhaps another example would help to convince: martind@duezer:~/playpen$ cat ignoring-packed.cpp template struct A { A(); } __attribute__((packed)); typedef A B; struct C { //A a; B b; } __attribute__((packed)); martind@duezer:~/playpen$ g++-4.0 -c ignoring-packed.cpp ignoring-packed.cpp:10: warning: ignoring packed attribute on unpacked non-POD field ?B C::b? martind@duezer:~/playpen$ With gcc version 4.0.3 (Debian 4.0.3-1). The commented-out line compiles fine, though it should be equivalent to the following line - the one which fails to compile. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13983