This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:49:29 -0400
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFk2RUYhAnLjFc8mcTfiheJAr4R6E1mdx32PTqZJ5EpPt8=4aQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <54FA2312 dot 8090408 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUYxSgU9VK3-EiRufGnr0BobxVShxkSmRD19=ZJNd-rbWg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 03/06/2015 06:03 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
So.. just to clarify that we're on the same page.. making volatile-qualified
types non-trivially copyable is ok, but making wrappers of volatile-qualified
types non-trivially copyable is not ok? That's easily doable implementation-wise,
but it makes me question the overall approach and its consistency.
Indeed. This is a question for CWG; we may want to reconsider the first
point as well.
Is there a way to indicate that from the point of C++ a type is not trivially
copyable without changing the "complexness" of a copy operation,
ultimately without changing ABI?
There are various hacks I can imagine, but I think I'd prefer to resolve
the standard issue before trying to implement it.
Jason