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 14:11:55 -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 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. 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.
Giovanni Bajo
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13683