------- Comment #8 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2006-03-16 04:31 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Nathan could you comment on this bug.
Two years with no comment. Is it because the Severity is set to Enhancement?
I'm convinced that the warning is incorrect, not missing, so I think the
Severity should be Normal and (perhaps) the Summary shouldn't say "no warning".
Perhaps another example would help to convince:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/playpen$ cat ignoring-packed.cpp
template <typename T>
struct A {
A();
} __attribute__((packed));
typedef A<int> B;
struct C {
//A<int> a;
B b;
} __attribute__((packed));
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/playpen$ g++-4.0 -c ignoring-packed.cpp
ignoring-packed.cpp:10: warning: ignoring packed attribute on unpacked non-POD
field ?B C::b?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/playpen$
With gcc version 4.0.3 (Debian 4.0.3-1).
The commented-out line compiles fine, though it should be equivalent to the
following line - the one which fails to compile.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13983
