This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Long-term plan for C++98/C++11 incompatibility
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm dot net>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:38:47 -0800
- Subject: RE: Long-term plan for C++98/C++11 incompatibility
- 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>
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 not a theoretical)
binary incompatibility?