This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/13683] [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis
- From: "giovannibajo at libero dot it" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Jan 2004 12:05:38 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/13683] [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis
- References: <20040114165645.13683.giovannibajo@libero.it>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-01-20 12:05 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 Regression] bogus warning about passing non-PODs through ellipsis
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Yes, the question to me is not "can we change the compiler's behavior"
> , but "should we?"
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. We're not
warning of an existing potential issue, because the call will simply never
happen. We could even argue that the diagnostic is misleading - by saying "the
code will abort at runtime", we trick the user into believing that there is
indeed a function call.
Giovanni Bajo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13683