Hi,
On 09/14/2017 09:50 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Niels Möller wrote:
This is more of a question than a bug report, so I'm trying to send it
to the list rather than filing a bugzilla issue.
I think it's quite common to write for- and while-loops where the
condition is alway
Hi,
There's an option in GCC "-mms-bitfields". The doc about it begins with:
"If packed is used on a structure, or if bit-fields are used, it may be
that the Microsoft ABI lays out the structure differently than the way
GCC normally does. Particularly when moving packed data between
functio
On 07/05/2017 01:26 PM, Geza Herman wrote:
On 07/05/2017 01:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I think the reason it's not optimized away is for this case:
void somefunction(const Object& object);
{
void* p = &object;
object.~Object();
new(p) Object();
}
This means that
On 07/05/2017 01:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I think the reason it's not optimized away is for this case:
void somefunction(const Object& object);
{
void* p = &object;
object.~Object();
new(p) Object();
}
This means that after calling someFunction there could be a different
object at
Hi,
I've included a small program at the end of my email.
Here's what happens: in callInitA(), an Object put onto the stack (which
has a const member variable, initialized to 0). Then somefunction called
(which is intentionally not defined). Then ~Object() is called, which
has an "if", which
