Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Endian mini-review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Boost.Endian mini-review
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-24 11:04:15

Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >    struct
> >    {
> >        big_int32_buf_t code;
> >        big_uint32_buf_t length;
> >        little_int16_buf_t version;
> >        big_int32_buf_ut shape_type;
> >    } data;
>
> You're mixing aligned and unaligned types. Shouldn't all be unaligned? See 
> the docs: "Warning: Code that uses aligned types is possibly non-portable 
> because alignment requirements vary between hardware architectures and 
> because alignment may be affected by compiler switches or pragmas. For 
> example, alignment of an 64-bit integer may be to a 32-bit boundary on a 
> 32-bit machine. Furthermore, aligned types are only available on 
> architectures with 16, 32, and 64-bit integer types."

Yes, a good argument against having aligned buffers at all, even though the 
docs do provide rationale for them. If you want aligned, use the non-buffer 
types.