> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 05:14, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 9:04 PM Nayan Deshmukh via Gcc
> >wrote:
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > #include
> > > struct A {
> > > int a;
> > > uint64_t b;
> > > int c = -1;
> > > };
> >
> > The question becomes is the above
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 05:14, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 9:04 PM Nayan Deshmukh via Gcc
> wrote:
> > #include
> > #include
> > #include
> > struct A {
> > int a;
> > uint64_t b;
> > int c = -1;
> > };
>
> The question becomes is the above a standard layout class or
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 9:04 PM Nayan Deshmukh via Gcc wrote:
> #include
> #include
> #include
> struct A {
> int a;
> uint64_t b;
> int c = -1;
> };
The question becomes is the above a standard layout class or not. I
Noticed clang does not change the rules for layout between C++11 and
C
Hello,
When I tried to link two modules which were compiled with different c++
standards, I observed that the offset of some fields of struct were different
when the same struct was accessed from both the modules. The issue is due to
the use of tail padding to allocate member variables in some
