Subject: Re: [boost] gcc4.3 warning for multiple scope exits
From: Kim Barrett (kab.conundrums_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-14 11:28:26
At 1:38 PM +0000 7/14/09, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>This is crazy, isn't it?
>Q: correctly indent the following code: <see code above>
>A: it's impossible
>For the second use, the correct indentation is:
> >::apply < 0
> >::apply_value > boost_scope_exit_args;
Yes. (I *think*. See discussion of "crazy" above.)
>They're the same because void* is well aligned and there is no padding
>in struct apply<0> but strictly speaking, they don't have to be of equal
Hm. Everything involved looks like POD to me (albeit with oddly spelled
names, if one is a C programmer). I think lots of code would be broken
if such types could be different in size. But I admit I can't right now
put together a string of text in the standard that would guarantee that
they are the same size.
> I like explicit specializations for declared and undeclared, though.
>They make reading code a little bit easier (and here "a little bit" make
>a big difference, given how complex the trick is).
>Perhaps adding BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT would be enough?
I don't see any way that could hurt. Even if not necessary, it may help
guide future readers in the right direction.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk