Long time ago, I reported bug to Visual C++ 9.0 (Visual Studio 2008 SP1) complaining that has_trivial_destructor applied to void returns true (ID:458570). I also discussed it with folks on comp.std.c++ where, among quite different voices, Pete Becker writes:
[tr.meta.req]/8 in TR1 requires is_pod::value to be 1. n2857 is not a standard, and implementations of previous standards are not wrong for not doing what isn’t yet required of them.
and later concludes:
Under the current standard, using the name std::is_pod requires a diagnostic. So if you want to be literal, both compilers are “wrong”. Nevertheless, neither is really “wrong”, they just implement different non-standard versions of is_pod.
So, Visual C++ might actually not be wrong. Fair enough.
Today, I got back to this issue for a while a little extending my test program to use the type traits from both, TR1 and C++0x:
<span class="cp">#include <iostream></span>
<span class="cp">#include <tr1/type_traits></span>
<span class="kt">int</span> <span class="n">main</span><span class="p">()</span>
<span class="p">{</span>
<span class="k">using</span> <span class="n">std</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">cout</span><span class="p">;</span> <span class="k">using</span> <span class="n">std</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">endl</span><span class="p">;</span>
<span class="n">cout</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">std</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">tr1</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">is_pod</span><span class="o"><</span><span class="kt">void</span><span class="o">>::</span><span class="n">value</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">endl</span><span class="p">;</span>
<span class="n">cout</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">std</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">tr1</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">has_trivial_destructor</span><span class="o"><</span><span class="kt">void</span><span class="o">>::</span><span class="n">value</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">endl</span><span class="p">;</span>
<span class="n">cout</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">std</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">is_pod</span><span class="o"><</span><span class="kt">void</span><span class="o">>::</span><span class="n">value</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">endl</span><span class="p">;</span>
<span class="n">cout</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">std</span><span class="o">::</span><span class="n">has_trivial_destructor</span><span class="o"><</span><span class="kt">void</span><span class="o">>::</span><span class="n">value</span> <span class="o"><<</span> <span class="n">endl</span><span class="p">;</span>
<span class="p">}</span>
and compiled it with GCC 4.4.1:
$ g++ -Wall -pedantic -std=c++0x void.cpp
$ ./a.out
1
1
0
0
Now, my confusion has been raised to the power of 2. This is clearly a Polnische Wirtschaft or Czech movie or Turkish sermon…
…let’s try to ask libstdc++ folks.
