------- Comment #10 from navinkumar+bugs at gmail dot com 2009-11-09 18:08
-------
After review, I agree it is not a bug.
Because _0_emptyB and _2_emptyB both inherent from empty_t, the compiler is
obligated to ensure that
static_cast<empty_t*>(static_cast<_0_emptyB*>(compositeB2)) !=
static_cast<empty_t*>(static_cast<_2_emptyB*>(compositeB2)). The zero-size
base class optimization doesn't apply when the grandparent empty class is
repeated.
--
navinkumar+bugs at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39981
