dblaikie added a comment.
In D117616#3295859 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117616#3295859>, @Bhramar.vatsa
wrote:
> @dblaikie
> The condition `FieldClass->isPOD()` returns false for the following case
> (when considering field 'struct foo t' of 'struct foo1') :
>
> class foo {
> foo() = default;
> int _a;
> };
>
> struct foo1 {
> struct foo t;
> } t1;
>
> The same code though doesn't give any warning for gcc:
> https://godbolt.org/z/f4chraerY
>
> This is because the way it works for CXXRecordDecl :
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1e3a02162db20264e9615b1346420c8d199cb347/clang/lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp#L928
>
> So, there seems to be a difference the way GCC is handling this case, in
> comparison to how now clang handles it.
>
> For the same case, `D->getType().isCXX11PODType()` (or `isPODType()`)
> indicates it to be a POD type. So, we think that this should be further
> changed such that it doesn't break the code that works with GCC.
Sorry, was a bit confused by the discussion of warnings and such - but, yes,
this does seem to be a remaining divergence in the layout between Clang (after
this patch was committed) and GCC: https://godbolt.org/z/GEM5q4fd3
@rsmith do you have a semi-exhaustive list of the variations in POD-ness I
should probably test to better understand which definition GCC is using here?
Reading the cppreference on POD, aggregate, standard layout, and trivial there
are a lot of dimensions and I was wondering if you had a quick-ish summary so I
hopefully don't miss cases & figure out exactly how this is meant to be sliced?
I'll work on some godbolt probes/test cases for now to see what I can come up
with.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117616/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117616
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
