https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #8) > Do you agree this warning output should be changed to clarify? Yes, there's plenty of room to improve it. > I understand your reply about it being non-POD when a C++ STL string is > added. Which adds the implicitly-defined copy constructor. Should it not say > "implicitly-defined copy constructor for 'struct info'"? instead of "this > function" ? That might be an improvement, but may not be easy to do. I doubt the code generating that warning knows it's in an implicitly-defined member. > Think also better for GCC to show the typedef 'info_t' - would you agree? No, I don't think so. What's the point in that typedef anyway? (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #10) > I wonder if the "POD" location of the struct What does that mean?
