On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions on new wording, something like
>>
>> 1. "class type". A class type is a structure, union or C++ class.
>> 2. "empty type". An empty type is a type where it and all of its
>> subobjects are of class or array type.
>>
>> Does it cover
>>
>> struct A { };
>> struct B { };
>> struct C : A, B { };
>
> I think this is covered by the above points. But without further
> restriction I don't see how e.g. the above example with ctors and dtors
> would be ruled out (except if you regard a ctor as a sub-object). For
> that you seem to need trivially-copyable, or that POD-ly thing. So,
> perhaps simply amend (2) "... is a trivially copyable type where it ...".
>
>
> Ciao,
> Michael.
How about
struct A {
static void foo (void) ();
static int xxx;
};
--
H.J.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
