On Aug 13, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/13/2014 05:38 PM, Dennis Handly wrote: >> Did the customer say how he was going to accept it on the callee side? > > My proposal is that this would all be handled transparently by the compiler, > which knows which types need to be handled this way. > >> aCC6 allows it with a warning but the results are unpredictable: >> warning #3290-D: Passing a non-POD object to a function with variable >> arguments has undefined behavior. Object will be copied onto >> the stack instead of using a constructor. >> >> (This is a bitwise copy.) > > Ah, so my proposal would be incompatible with the current aCC behavior. Hmm.
I agree that this is a problem; we shouldn't “standardize" something that a vendor doesn’t feel they can reasonably adopt. We could document it as a recommendation, I suppose. Out of curiosity, how does aCC handle destruction of the argument? Does it call the destructor at the argument's original location or its new location in the arguments area? John. _______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
