Subject: Re: [boost] [align] [review] Pre-review comments
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-30 05:36:59
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I don't agree with the change in aligned_alloc requirements that would
> undefine its behavior when 'alignment' is not a fundamental or an extended
> alignment value. There are cases in which one needs memory aligned at values
> that are not specific to the C++ implementation but come from hardware or
> the OS, determined at runtime, such as the page size, cache line size,
> sector size.
Makes sense. Even the C11 specification for its aligned_alloc()
doesn't require that alignment's value be a fundamental or extended
Ideally align() could also have the same relaxed requirements but
C++11 specifies otherwise.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk