[Bug c++/40202] New: warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

[jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com]

void f(...);

struct X {
X();
};

void g() {
X x;
f(x);
}

nonpod.cpp: In function ‘void g()’:
nonpod.cpp:9: warning: cannot pass objects of non-POD type ‘struct X’ through
‘...’; call will abort at runtime

Someone I know is currently trying to fix this warning in a very large
application with a complex build system.  Clearly something weird is going on. 
A pointer to the file and line of the function declaration would help eliminate
some possibilities at least, and possibly pinpoint the problem.


-- 
   Summary: warning about passing non-POD objects through ‘...’
should include name and location of declaration being
called
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

[jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #2 from jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com  2009-05-20 14:28 
---
No, I'm asking for the extra line:

nonpod.cpp:1: calling `void f(...)' declared here


-- 

jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|warning about passing non-  |warning about passing non-
   |POD objects through ‘...’   |POD objects through
   |should include name and |�...� should include
   |location of declaration |name and location of
   |being called|declaration being called


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202

[Bug c++/40202] warning about passing non-POD objects through �...� should include name and location of declaration being called

[jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #3 from jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com  2009-05-20 14:33 
---
I should clarify that in the real-world case, the apparently relevant
declaration doesn't use ... at all, hence the tentative diagnosis of "something
weird".


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40202

[Bug c/26542] bogus diagnostic with -pedantic?: format '%p'; expects type 'void*', but argument 2 has type 'A*'

[jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #9 from jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com  2009-02-10 22:22 
---
Please consider reopening this bug.

I appreciate that the relevant standards don't guarantee this idiom will always
work.  On the other hand, this warning is in practice only a nuisance.  Balance
the real work this makes for people who try to keep their code pedantic-clean
against the risk that someday an architecture will come along where it matters.

Could we maybe delete this warning just until we have some reason to believe
that such an architecture is likely to exist someday, and then reinstate it?


-- 

jason dot orendorff at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jason dot orendorff at gmail
   |    |dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26542