>From: John McCall <[email protected]> >To me, it sounds like aCC warning about the metaprogramming >use case, you got a bug about it, and you fixed it, but that you never >intended to support actually doing this at runtime.
I don't think so. ;-) It was supported with that test case back in 1996 but with the scary form of the warning. Supported in that the test did exactly what the warnings said. I assume this functionality came from cfront or was built into the Taligent compiler. (I'm not sure how this was ported to the EDG compiler if we didn't have a functional test for it? Or it's too hard to find. :-) The test case that had the warning had nothing to do with it (since a decade later) but with placement delete. >But its your decision, or I should say HPs. If you feel comfortable >saying that you do not currently support passing non-POD types through >varargs, and that you consider it undefined behavior, Undefined by the Standard but implemented with HP's definition of a bitwise copy. >then I think the best thing for the ABI is to say that vendors who >choose to support non-POD varargs must follow Jason's proposal. >Otherwise, well have to be much more weaselly about it. :) John. I don't have any objections but Soumitra might. It would be nice to point to HP's aC++ and mention another way of doing it but it's not ideal. :-)
_______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
