Do concepts change the definition of POD/Trivial types?

[xcvr]

Hello!

I did not see a mention of C compatibility or POD/Triviality in the concepts proposal. I was wondering what, if any, changes concepts results causes in the definition of POD/triviality.

Consider the following code (http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/G2YbVKEvQZ7SqK91), which currently compiles on gcc regardless of what sizeof(std::size_t) evaluates to:

#include <iostream>

struct A
{
    A() = default;
    A(const A&) = default;
    A(A&&) = default;
    A& operator=(const A&) = default;
    A& operator=(A&&) = default;
    ~A() requires (sizeof(std::size_t) == 5) = default;
};


int main()
{
    static_assert(std::is_trivial<A>::value, "");
    static_assert(std::is_pod<A>::value, "");
// does not compile
//    A a;
//    A b(a);
    return 0;
}

See section 12.4.5.4 through 12.4.5.6 of the current working draft for the definition of trivial destructors. Copy/move constructors/assignment operators may also be affected.

Keeping it brief,

 - xcvr