Re: [cxx-abi-dev] non-public non-static members vs POD layout

[David Vandevoorde <daveed@xxxxxxx>]

On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
[...]
> So, yes, we agreed to use TC1 PODs, and thus pointers-to-members are  
> in.  In that case, yes, I think we have to say how they are laid out  
> -- but I think we already do.
> For data members, we say that a pointer to data member is  
> "represented as a ptrdiff_t."
> And for pointers to function members; we say that they have "the  
> size, data size, and alignment of a class containing these two  
> members", after saying what members they are.  I think we could  
> probably make that more explicit by saying that they layout is as  
> for the following class:
>  struct pointer_to_member {
>    void (*ptr)();
>    ptrdiff_t adj;
>  };
>
> That would eliminate ambiguities.  But, I think that's just an  
> editorial change.  (Anyone object to that change?  Or think it's a  
> good idea?)
No objection.  (I agree it's editorial, and I think clarification is a  
good idea.)
	Daveed