>From: John McCall <[email protected]> >Id be happier if you disavowed the previous implementation of the >extension, of course. :)
Well, that's what "undefined" means. :-) >So, you suppress destruction completely of the argument, and it potentially >goes undestructed? Yes, and since we don't call the copy constructor, everything is balanced. >I dont see how we can prevent it John. You just say that this use of va_arg produces a const Foo& and don't allow Foo to be mentioned. I suppose you could allow a "const Foo" too. With your current idea, did you plan to invoke copy constructor or copy assignment operator for: Foo f = va_arg(ap, Foo); I would assume you would have to do that, since the user can "rewind" and use va_start ... va_end multiple times.
_______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
