[PATCH] Implement CWG496: Is a volatile-qualified type really a POD?
richard at metafoo.co.uk
Wed Jan 21 13:47:16 PST 2015
Some possible approaches:
- update the tests to check that we don't memcpy in this case
- change FieldMemcpyizer (in CGClass) to allow volatile fields and create a volatile memcpy call
The test was added for PR9027, which is just trying to make sure we emit a volatile load/store in this case, and either approach satisfies its requirements, but checking for the absence of a memcpy seems like a somewhat better approach to me.
More information about the cfe-commits