Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: | > On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > > I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions, | > > and the variable argument function doesn't need to know the full size | > > of the struct, since it is not using it as a String object, it is using | > > it as a char * pointer (which is what gets passed). | > | > Does not matter if the class has no virtual functions or not. The | > class is a non POD. | | Andrew, I think you're being overly pedantic. While it is true that | the standard permits what I will call "trivial non-PODs" to be laid | out differently from PODs, there's another spec we conform to as well, | the C++ ABI, and that spec specifies in this case that the layout is | exactly the same as a POD. | | So GCC could support this case and treat the warning as a pedwarn.
I believe there is no question that the code as originally posted invokes undefined behaviour. C++0x, however, has revised/relaxed the notion of POD. -- Gaby
