From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5958 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2008 09:32:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 4432 invoked by uid 48); 7 Oct 2008 09:31:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081007093112.4431.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/37762] Member variable of empty base optimized (EBO) class appears on wrong offset In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "david dot rosenborg at pantor dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from david dot rosenborg at pantor dot com 2008-10-07 09:31 ------- Ah, no, I wasn't aware of that document. I just thought that gcc was treating the Good and Bad cases inconsitently. Now, in layman's terms, is the reason for the padding that no two distinct instances of Empty may share the same address? If that is the case, it would explain the padding and this is not a bug. Sorry, should have investigated more before hitting the commit button. /David -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37762