Subject: Re: [boost] [config] RFC PR 82
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-01 09:59:11
On 2015-12-01 17:18, AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ© wrote:
> But what tops it all, what makes this decision a plain and simple
> mistake, is that this "just works" because implementations map this kind
> of undefined behavior into specific well-defined behavior. So it's just
> undefined behavior for the sake of "pretty syntax" (a subjective thing
> at best). Why then wouldn't you just simply write that well-defined code
> that these implementations are translating to?
It's not just syntax. If I'm not mistaken, the union-based type punning
has advantage over memcpy - it allows the code to be constexpr.
memcpy also has potential to be a function call instead of a few
instructions (or no instructions at all). I know many compilers are
aware of memcpy and optimize it, but that's not something one can rely on.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk