g++.dg/ext/packed3.C

[Nathan Sidwell]

Jan Beulich wrote:

> I don't think this is the case. The questionable code (from the test
> case) really is
> 
> struct Unpacked { int i; };
> struct  __attribute__ ((packed)) Packed
> {
>   char c;
>   int i;
>   Unpacked u;
> };
> 
> and the test expects that you cannot bind Packed::u to Unpacked& (error
> expected), but that you can bind Packed::u::i to int& (not even a
> warning expected). No warning is expected on the definition of Packed's
> u member.

ok.  I think you're right.  I think I've remembered why it is the way it is, and 
that's because rejecting such a binding broke overload resolution of (the 
trivial) Unpacked::operator=. I think that no longer applies.

nathan
-- 
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk