Re: [boost] [optional] Strict Aliasing Warnings on Trunk

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] Strict Aliasing Warnings on Trunk
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-18 15:19:45

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida
<felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Emil Dotchevski
> <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida
>> <felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> But nothing else is guaranteed. The compiler might very well increment
>>> it by one byte when casting to T2 and then decrement it when casting
>>> it back. It is perfectly valid behavior for reinterpret_cast.
>>
>> It is perfectly portable as well.
>
> It is not portable if we dereference it, which optional does.

I am going off of what Giovanni said earlier in this thread about how
optional works, which seems to contradict your statement above.

>>> IMO we should be using static_cast<T2*>(static_cast<void*>(x)) which
>>> is not implementation-defined.
>>
>> Casting to a pointer of unrelated type doesn't suite static_cast,
>> reinterpret_cast is a better choice.
>
> I don't understand why.
> How is reinterpret_cast better than static_cast?

In this case reinterpret_cast is a better choice because even with
static_cast, the cast is just as unsafe, but may appear safer because
static_cast is perceived as safer than reinterpret_cast.

You don't want to make it harder for the programmer to see that the
operation is potentially dangerous, do you?

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode