[llvm-bugs] [Bug 46711] New: Clang and GCC disagree on the definition of "POD for the purpose of layout" for classes with a defaulted/deleted constructor/destructor/copy or move assignment operator

[via llvm-bugs]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46711

            Bug ID: 46711
           Summary: Clang and GCC disagree on the definition of "POD for
                    the purpose of layout" for classes with a
                    defaulted/deleted constructor/destructor/copy or move
                    assignment operator
           Product: clang
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P
         Component: C++
          Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
          Reporter: riccibrun at gmail.com
                CC: blitzrakete at gmail.com, dgregor at apple.com,
                    erik.pilkington at gmail.com, llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org,
                    richard-llvm at metafoo.co.uk

For targets using the C++03 definition of POD for ABI purposes, GCC allows a
class type to be "POD for the purpose of layout" if the class has a defaulted
or deleted constructor/destructor/copy or move assignment operator. Clang does
not. Example:

struct S {
    int i;
    char b;
    ~S() = default;
};

struct T : S {
    char c;
};

int i = sizeof(T); // 12 with GCC, 8 with Clang (on x86-64)

(https://godbolt.org/z/sbsM54)

This is not a new issue; GCC has this behaviour since at least GCC 4.5.3, and
clang has this behaviour since at least clang 3.0.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20200714/b73b3e5b/attachment.html>