dblaikie added a comment. In D119051#3314138 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051#3314138>, @Bhramar.vatsa wrote:
> Sorry, but I can only add a bit more confusion: > https://godbolt.org/z/fT19KTh34 > There are two cases, only differing in terms of user-defined constructor. > > Gcc and clang differs in the two cases. Gcc at least packs the second case > (without user defined constructor), but clang (trunk version) doesn't. Right - but with this proposed patch applied, Clang's answer is consistent with GCC's behavior, I believe? > Uncomment/define macro 'PROPS' to check that the type-traits indicate in both > cases that it can be considered POD. Yes, I believe/understand that both of these types are C++11 POD, but the first example is not C++98/03 POD (and the second example isn't valid C++98/03, but as an extension, it is supported in C++98/03 and as far as I can tell (see the switch example in https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051#3305511 ) GCC deems the defaulted constructor to be still be C++98/03 POD, as an extension). So, I believe your example is consistent with the theory I gave at the start of this patch: GCC is using the C++98/03 definition of POD, with an extension for defaulted functions, to determine whether to pack/align a member or not, and changing Clang's definition of 98/03 POD to match GCC's (by adding an extension for defaulted functions) is probably the right thing to do, so far as I can gather. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119051 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
