On 13 December 2011 17:01, Paolo Carlini <pcarl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, >> >> This patch seems pretty simple and safe. Are you (Gaby and Paolo) arguing >> that even so, it shouldn't go in? > > As far as I'm concerned, definetely not! I also think that it would be great > if, for 4.7, Jon could handle the library issues with EBO by exploiting it.
Yes, if this goes in for 4.7 I will definitely follow it with the library changes to make use of it. > I only meant to say that something seems to me more fundamentally wrong at > the design level about 'final' vs EBO, my hope is that for 4.8 we'll have a > longer term stable solution based on a ISO Committee position. In one of the earlier bug report comments I proposed a __gnu_cxx::is_final<T> library trait to expose the __is_final(T) intrinsic for users, but decided against it precisely because I don't know how the committee will want to deal with the issue longer term. So the proposed patch just adds the __is_final intrinsic for use internally by the library, to allow library changes so the test cases in the bug report will pass. If preferred I won't even add __is_final to the extend.texi docs, to leave it as an undocumented extension that we could more easily remove (or deprecate) later if necessary.
