[Bug c++/13683] [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis

["gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-01-20 15:03 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis

"giovannibajo at libero dot it" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2004-01-20 14:11 -------
| Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis
| 
| gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
| 
| >> Passing a non-POD object through ellipsis is undefined behaviour
| >> *if* the call is done. In our situation, there is absolutely no call being
| >> performed (nor code generated where we abort), so there is no
| >> undefined behaviour.
| 
| > I can understand your request in the case of sizeof but I do not
| > understand it as rephrased as above.  How precisely do you define call
| > being performed or code generated?
| 
| I was thinking of something along the lines of "potentially evaluated",
| [basic.def.odr]/2.

Oh yeah, go some paragraphs down, and you'll see that thw whole thing
is a little bit confused.  And remember, most people want intelligible
diagnostics and are not well versed in "standardese" (i.e. common
words with slightly different meaning).

|  Anyway, if we both agree on my request for the sizeof()
| case, I'm happy with it, I'll let you pick my explanation of it which is more
| correct, or please do provide your own reasoning for this.

As I said earlier I understand the request for sizeof() as it is an
*integral constant expression* whose value does not involve a runtime
semantics and is well defined.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13683