Boost logo

Boost :

From: Anthony Williams (anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-05 11:41:24

Eric Woodruff writes:
> "Anthony Williams" <anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden]> wrote in
> message news:15855.9421.560000.173275_at_gargle.gargle.HOWL...
> > Thus, given that is properly aligned, (which is the purpose of
> the
> > other union member), after "new( Foo", contains a Foo
> > object. Thus accessing it through a pointer-to-Foo is legal, as Foo is the
> > dynamic type of the object.
> >
> This is precisely my reasoning why reinterpret_cast<> is _not_
> implementation defined.
> It must be the case that it is equal to the situation of having
> Foo* -> char */void* -> Foo* if Foo is the dynamic type of the object.

Nowhere do I see a requirement that supports your deductions. Indeed there are
very few requirements on reinterpret_cast<>, other than the fact that what it
does must be defined by the implementation. For pointers to objects, these
amount to:

* T1* can be converted to T2* and back again unchanged (unless T2 has stricter
  alignment requirements).

* You can convert a pointer to the first member of a POD struct to a pointer
  to the struct, and vice-versa.

* A Null pointer of any type can be cast to a null pointer of any other type.


Anthony Williams
Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd.
Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at