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: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm dot net>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:59:12 -0500
- 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> <59662D5BB74CD84D9FA8E6491ADB51A7E3A5BB8E@US01WXMBX1.internal.synopsys.com>
On 01/05/2012 01:38 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
Class layout in the ABI still uses the C++98 definition of POD.
But does this actually matter?
Yes, since PODness affects the use of tail padding. But it isn't a
source of ABI incompatibility since "POD for the purpose of layout"
isn't changing.
Jason