possible structure layout bug

[Andrew Haley]

Richard Henderson writes:
 > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 06:22:24PM +0100, Stephen Kennedy wrote:
 > > Normally, compilers place members from derived classes starting at
 > > sizeof(base), but gcc breaks this rule if the class contains a simd type
 > > and places the derived member in the padding of the base class.
 > 
 > Has nothing to do with simd or not.  Has everything to do 
 > with POD or non-POD type.

Yeah, but that just raises a new question: what defines a class with a
SIMD type member as non-POD?  Clearly the C++ Standard makes no such
ruling, so why do we?  Or is this just an accident?

Andrew.