Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-27 20:58:47

On 28/01/2021 6:03 am, Edward Diener wrote:
>> Assumptions about alignment, endianness and overflow semantics and FP
>> specifics are also not limited to lower level libraries and tend to
>> crop up at any level.
> Granted ! But I think that the vast majority of Boost libraries do not
> deal in these issues. For the ones that do testing with different
> platform/architecturs is important.

The size of int, long, pointers, size_t, and time_t (among others) are
implementation-defined, as well as such common shortcuts as ((uint32_t)
-1) assumed equivalent to 0xFFFFFFFFu (which is not guaranteed), and to
some extent casting between signed and unsigned integers in general.

It's basically impossible to write any non-contrived C/C++ code that
doesn't rely on implementation-defined behaviour *somewhere*. As such
it seems like a good idea to test on as many implementations as
reasonably feasible.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at