[PATCH] Implement CWG496: Is a volatile-qualified type really a POD?

[Richard Smith]

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.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D7060

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/