Re: [boost] [optional] How to define boost::none?

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] How to define boost::none?
From: David Stone (david_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-20 10:07:16

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 5:54 PM, David Stone <david_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Is it really such a problem to have this object in every translation
> unit?
> > Is it beyond current linker technology to merge these identical copies,
> > thus preventing binary bloat?
>
> The linker must not merge them because these objects must have
> distinct addresses. This might not be the case for references though.
>
>
Only if you take their address. If no one is saying &boost::none or passing
it by reference to a function that takes its address, no one can tell the
difference.