Traits of void resolved

It looks like I’ve got clarified status of the traits of void type. I posted my question to libstdc++ where Paolo Carlini kindly provided me what the bits I have been missing. Now, all the puzzles are in place:

[n1836], the specifications for the TR1 features mandates true for is_pod<void>, etc. Arguably this is a defect, which has been fixed in the ongoing work for the next standard, so-called C++0x.

The TR1 document in section 4.9 states:

8 It is unspecified under what circumstances, if any, is_pod::value evaluates to true, except that, for all types T:

is_pod<T>::value >=
   (is_scalar<T>::value || is_void<T>::value);

Given that, the bug report ID:458570 I submitted to Visual C++ 9.0 and it’s TR1 implementation on Microsoft Connect stays valid and according to what Stephan T. Lavavej confirmed in comments to my report, it’s been fixed in Visual C++ 10.0.

Paolo also added a note particularly important to programmers relying on C++ implementation by GCC compiler and libstdc++ library:

In general, we consider TR1 essentially frozen at this time and minimally maintained, consider that it was just an interim Technical Report

Here are references that are fundamental for the matter:

  • n1836 – Draft Technical Report on C++ Library Extensions
  • n2960 – Working Draft, Standard for Programming Language C++
  • Implementation of is_pod<T> and the rest of type traits by Boost.TypeTraits library.

Mission accomplished ;-)

Traits of void

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:

#include <iostream>
#include <tr1/type_traits>
int main()
{
using std::cout; using std::endl;
cout << std::tr1::is_pod<void>::value << endl;
cout << std::tr1::has_trivial_destructor<void>::value << endl;
cout << std::is_pod<void>::value << endl;
cout << std::has_trivial_destructor<void>::value << endl;
}

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.