From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-171917-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5235 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2012 18:41:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 5226 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2012 18:41:50 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from hermes.synopsys.com (HELO hermes.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.81)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:41:34 +0000
Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171])	by hermes.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7075A4B8;	Thu,  5 Jan 2012 10:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us01wxhtc1.internal.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05742;	Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from US01WXMBX1.internal.synopsys.com ([10.15.75.41]) by us01wxhtc1.internal.synopsys.com ([10.15.75.39]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:41:28 -0800
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,        Gabriel Dos Reis	<gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
CC: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>, James Y Knight <foom@fuhm.net>,        "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:55:00 -0000
Subject: RE: Long-term plan for C++98/C++11 incompatibility
Message-ID: <59662D5BB74CD84D9FA8E6491ADB51A7E3A5BB8E@US01WXMBX1.internal.synopsys.com>
References: <ad8c6058334056cb636e032b68514f56.squirrel@fuhm.net>	<CAAiZkiBRjZwTDvH=7mgog1dy5mv09L3O9x5oup4qYV1Pb8KayQ@mail.gmail.com>	<59662D5BB74CD84D9FA8E6491ADB51A7DEAE4E3D@US01WXMBX1.internal.synopsys.com>	<CAAiZkiBJupjJ89B3WRHSO8oJA=zDbj7o2rkOFMmvzUdyoW3zRQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20111010222528.GB29806@synopsys.com> <CAAiZkiC8Rsot+TDPpOxJdUtFcT7GPdk9KimF_z139tCLxJVGaQ@mail.gmail.com>,<4F05ED4C.3050502@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F05ED4C.3050502@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2

On 10/10/2011 08:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> PODness has changed from C++98.

Jason Merrill wrote:

> Class layout in the ABI still uses the C++98 definition of POD.

But does this actually matter?  If I understand correctly, more classes are=
 POD under the C++11
rules than the C++98 rules, but are there any classes that are legal C++98 =
that require a different
layout under the new rules?  Can anyone produce an example of a real (and n=
ot a theoretical)
binary incompatibility?