On 01/15/2018 03:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Martin Sebor:
+the virtual table. Modifying the representation of such objects may violate
^vtable pointer?
The vtable itself is not corrupted, I assume.
Well, what happens is undefined, so who knows? ;)
But of course in reality, writ
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Martin Sebor:
>
>> +the virtual table. Modifying the representation of such objects may violate
>^vtable pointer?
>
> The vtable itself is not corrupted, I assume.
Indeed.
Jason
* Martin Sebor:
> +the virtual table. Modifying the representation of such objects may violate
^vtable pointer?
The vtable itself is not corrupted, I assume.
On 01/14/2018 03:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 04:14:38PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
-The @option{-Wclass-memaccess} option is enabled by @option{-Wall}.
+The @option{-Wclass-memaccess} option is enabled by @option{-Wall}. Casting
Perhaps "Explicitly casting" instead? T
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 04:14:38PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> -The @option{-Wclass-memaccess} option is enabled by @option{-Wall}.
> +The @option{-Wclass-memaccess} option is enabled by @option{-Wall}. Casting
Perhaps "Explicitly casting" instead? The implicit cast doesn't suppress it
and occu
OK, thanks.
On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is the documentation update for Jakub's recent change
> to recognize a cast to void* as a suppression mechanism for
> -Wclass-memaccess (the last sentence).
>
> I also reworded the cumbersome first sentence a bit so the d
Attached is the documentation update for Jakub's recent change
to recognize a cast to void* as a suppression mechanism for
-Wclass-memaccess (the last sentence).
I also reworded the cumbersome first sentence a bit so the diff
looks bigger than the substantive change itself actually is.
Martin
gc
