https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
The warning should at least to be using OPT_Wattribute to allow it to be turned
on/off with a warning flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #9 from Stas Sergeev ---
Note that this silly (and wrong)
warning can't even be disabled.
Or at least the warning itself
doesn't hint how to do that.
I think all other warnings do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #8 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> Using the non-standard packed attribute already makes the code non-portable.
It may be non-standard, but its still portable
as long as all compilers agree on im
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kenman Tsang from comment #6)
> Sorry for bring this topic back again.
That's OK, the bug is still open.
> But I think there are some
> inconsistancy with the std::is_pod and the error messag
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
Kenman Tsang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kentsangkm at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> warning_at
> (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (x), 0,
>"ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field
> %q#D",
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose since packed structs violate the ABI anyway, we don't need them to
use the ABI-stable definition of POD for the purpose of layout.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That doesn't change anything, the default is gnu++14 anyway. My point is not
that the compiler is in C++98 mode, just that the condition for the warning
uses the old definition. The code confirms it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> The warning might be using the old C++98 definition of POD.
Lets specify -std explicitly then:
$ g++ -std=c++11 pod.cpp
pod.cpp:11:16: warning: ignoring packe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83732
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo
