This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: has_trivial_destructor improvable?
- From: "Hite, Christopher" <Christopher dot Hite at partner dot commerzbank dot com>
- To: "Hite, Christopher" <Christopher dot Hite at partner dot commerzbank dot com>, "'gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:55:47 +0100
- Subject: RE: has_trivial_destructor improvable?
- References: <56888C35366397458A8FA0626BA836F119B5AD78D8@SE002568.cs.commerzbank.com>
Hi, does has_trivial_destructor<> and co depend on compiler magic?
Is it possible to detect empty deconstructors/constructors. The reason I ask is because I'd like to make better placeholders for a boost::optional implementation using new unions from N2544.
template<typename T>
union placeholder{
T v;
placeholder() {} // breaks has_trivial_constructor
~placeholder (){} // breaks has_trivial_destructor
};
Is improving these possible or is there some conceptual problem with a circular reference?
Chris