--- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-24 00:25
---
This issue will not be resolved in GCC 4.1.0; retargeted at GCC 4.1.1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #12 from titusjan at gmail dot com 2006-02-17 08:38 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Is this still an issue in 4.1/4.2. IIUC I've cleaned up the points where this
> warning was/was not being emitted.
>
Ah. I've got 4.0.3. I'll check 4.1/4.2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #11 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-16 20:12 ---
Is this still an issue in 4.1/4.2. IIUC I've cleaned up the points where this
warning was/was not being emitted.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17519
--- Comment #10 from titusjan at gmail dot com 2006-02-15 11:53 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #4)
[snip]
> All the more reason to warn if we don't pack these members now, but we might
> fix that in the future and thus change the data layout.
> I.e. if the packed a
--- Comment #9 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-10 18:22 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> There's certainly a good case for warning about packing that's likely not to
> have the desired results - we've been bitten by that before. But that doesn't
> really apply to all non-POD; y
