On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On 10/24/07, John Gateley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions, > > and the variable argument function doesn't need to know the full size > > of the struct, since it is not using it as a String object, it is using > > it as a char * pointer (which is what gets passed). > > Does not matter if the class has no virtual functions or not. The > class is a non POD.
Andrew, I think you're being overly pedantic. While it is true that the standard permits what I will call "trivial non-PODs" to be laid out differently from PODs, there's another spec we conform to as well, the C++ ABI, and that spec specifies in this case that the layout is exactly the same as a POD. So GCC could support this case and treat the warning as a pedwarn.
