On 11/24/20 1:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/23/20 7:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/20 11:54 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/16/20 9:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The result of DECL_SIZE_UNIT doesn't always reflect the size
of data members of virtual classes. This can lead to objects
of
On 11/23/20 7:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/16/20 11:54 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/16/20 9:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The result of DECL_SIZE_UNIT doesn't always reflect the size
of data members of virtual classes. This can lead to objects
of such types appearing smaller than they are
On 11/16/20 11:54 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/16/20 9:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The result of DECL_SIZE_UNIT doesn't always reflect the size
of data members of virtual classes. This can lead to objects
of such types appearing smaller than they are to warnings like
-Warray-bounds or
On 11/16/20 9:41 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The result of DECL_SIZE_UNIT doesn't always reflect the size
of data members of virtual classes. This can lead to objects
of such types appearing smaller than they are to warnings like
-Warray-bounds or -Wstringop-overflow, causing false positives.
To
The result of DECL_SIZE_UNIT doesn't always reflect the size
of data members of virtual classes. This can lead to objects
of such types appearing smaller than they are to warnings like
-Warray-bounds or -Wstringop-overflow, causing false positives.
To avoid these false positives, the attached
