From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 22:35:05
on Fri Nov 02 2007, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov-AT-pdimov.com> wrote:
> Boris Gubenko:
>>> I think the correct change to silence the type conversion error is
>>> char * first = static_cast<char *>(static_cast<void
>> I'm not sure my change is incorrect. In terms of style, I think that your
>> change is better.
> Dave's insistence that we have to obfuscate our reinterpret_casts is
> well known and a very strict reading of the standard is on his side
> _in this specific case_, but I personally don't find his style
> better at all.
Me neither. But that's the way it is.
BTW, when I asked this question of the standard committee's core
working group, the response was a kind of stunned surprise that anyone
would even ask, and aside from one person, they all thought it was
obviously true that static_cast-ing through void was the only correct
thing to do.
> (A reinterpret_cast<char*>( p ) is indirectly required to work when
> p is a pointer to a class type,
Where does the standard say that, and what
do you mean by "work?"
As far as I know the only things that reinterpret_cast is required to
work for are round-trip pointer conversions and -- if a suitable
integer type exists -- some kind of conversion of pointers into
> but it's possible in theory for a sufficiently mischievous compiler
> to break it for long*. I know of no such compiler, present or
> future, of course.)
And most probably won't, because reinterpret_cast is so widely used
with the assumption it does what everyone wants. However, we might
want Boost code to pass cleanly through code verification tools, for
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk