From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-25 16:36:10
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:45 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Several useful utility classes uploaded
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_g...> wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > Please, take a look at: aligned_storage.hpp (and
> > aligned_storage_detail.hpp) in
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/class%20optional
> > I believe this is exactly the same that you are presenting here.
> > Let me know what do you think.
> > Regards,
> > Fernando Cacciola
> > Sierra s.r.l.
> > fcacciola_at_g...
> > www.gosierra.com
> Yes, you have faced exactly the same alignment problem as I have; the
> fact that at least two of us have had to solve the same problem
In fact, Douglas Gregor faced this too in his stack based variant class.
> is a
> good existence proof for the need for this functionality to be
> available in the language!
> (actually, as well as the stack_allocator,
> hinted_node_allocator and valunion classes that I have submitted, I
> have also needed this functionality in several other classes that I
> have developed over the years).
> The best solution, I think, given that the problem cannot be
> completely solved in current ISO C++, would be a language change that
> added a standardised alignment_of() and #pragma align that worked on
> members of structures and in templated code.
I haven't tought about the core issues involved.
> Failing that, however, a second best solution is to have a standard
> (or, initially, Boost) library class that could be guaranteed to work
> on all tested platforms (using platform-specific implementations if
> Your alignment_alias<T>::type appears to be a more sophisticated
> implementation than my alignment_traits<T>::align_t and may do a
> better job, assuming that boost::alignment_of<>::value is accurate
> which it is not guaranteed to be.
The core of alignment_alias<T> was borrowed from Doug's stack based variant;
so it isn't really *my* implementation.
> (minor note: I see that your list of base types from which to choose
> doesn't include a POD- I had the vague impression that some C++
> implementations can give a structure a different alignment to
> everything else, so it may be prudent to add one to your list).
Off the top of my head I think this isn't necessary, but I'll think about
> My aligment_traits<T>::align_t class is more conservative and
> optimised for small types- it may produce a larger alignment than
> required. Maybe some tests are needed on different platforms to see
> which approach works best.
I see. I need to look closer to your implementation.
> In any case, I think that one of these classes or something like it
> should be added to Boost.
> Do you agree that boost::alignment_of<T>::align_t would be the best
> way to integrate it into Boost?
If alignment_of<> didn't existed, and we were creating it, yes, I think
I'll put 'align_t' there.
But, given that alignment_of<> is already in use, I'm not sure.
We need to know what other boosters think about this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk