ReportedBy: timb at bluearc dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i486-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23780
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: timb at bluearc dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i486-linux
GCC host triplet: i486-linux
GCC target triplet: i486-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21755
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: timb at bluearc dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i486-linux
GCC host triplet: i486-linux
GCC target triplet: i486-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20796
--- Additional Comments From timb at bluearc dot com 2005-02-28 17:04
---
That's orthogonal though - and presumably it only applies to a packed object or
member *whose type is not packed by definition*, because you can so easily end
up passing a pointer or reference to something
--- Additional Comments From timb at bluearc dot com 2005-01-27 17:50
---
There's certainly a good case for warning about packing that's likely not to
have the desired results - we've been bitten by that before. But that doesn't
really apply to all non-POD; you can
