From: Marco (mrcekets_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-02 17:30:12
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:21:12 +0200, Sebastian Redl
> Marco wrote:
>> What I'm interesting is if the standard says something about declaration
>> order of struct fields and their storage order in memory.
> It does. It says that members of a struct or class (even non-POD ones,
> which I think is a useless restriction) that have no intervening access
> specifier are stored in memory in the same order as they are declared.
> 9.2/12 says:
>> Nonstatic data members of a (non-union) class declared without an
>> intervening /access-specifier/ are allocated so that later members
>> higher addresses within a class object. The order of allocation of
>> nonstatic data members separated by an /access-specifier/ is
>> unspecified. Implementation alignment requirements might
>> cause two adjacent members not to be allocated immediately after each
>> other; so might requirements for space for managing virtual
>> functions and virtual base classes.
> That means:
> class foo
> int i1;
> int i2;
> int i3;
> int i4;
> int i5;
> &i1 < &i2 == true
> &i3 < &i4 == true
> &i1 < &i3 unspecified
> &i3 < &i5 unspecified
What surprise me it's that the order of allocation is unspecified even if
two adjacent access specifiers are the same.
That is &i3 < &i5 unspecified.
So access specifiers could be used to hint the compiler that it could
reorder member allocation according to its needs.
> In particular, although no compiler I know of does it, an implementation
> can reorder fields to e.g. make the allocation pattern more efficient:
> class inefficient
> char c1;
> int i1;
> char c2;
> int c2;
> Naively, on a typical 32-bit platform, sizeof(inefficent) would be 16.
> But with all the intervening access specifiers, a compiler would be
> allowed to arrange the members as i1,i2,c1,c2 and make
> sizeof(inefficient) 12.
I see, maybe on some exotic platform this could actually happen, or if the
size optimization option is passed to the compiler.
> What I personally don't understand is why private members - or in fact
> all members of non-PODs - can't always be re-ordered. It's not like
> anyone should ever depend on their order. It probably was C
> compatibility that there were any guarantees at all.
> Sebastian Redl
Thanks for the further explanation.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk