From -8765695424730585651 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc772,10e355266b6fd117 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public X-Google-Thread: f78e5,10e355266b6fd117 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-03 08:12:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!denver-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!namche.sun.com!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews1.eng.sun.com!taumet!clamage From: "David Abrahams" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++,comp.lang.c++.moderated Subject: Re: A humble attempt to suggest alignment support for C++ Date: 3 Jun 2002 15:06:21 GMT Organization: unknown Lines: 32 Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com (comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <3CEA1A08.C6D95CC7@lmf.ericsson.se> <53e3f3b2.0205270557.bdd703d@posting.google.com> <53e3f3b2.0205302330.67a3eeb5@posting.google.com> Reply-To: "David Abrahams" NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Original-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:27:37 -0400 X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated iQBVAwUAPPpI4EHMCo9UcraBAQEHjwH7Bz4JOTrsilgxNzsbDXjUgqw079+ziUO4 mRC38G8RWyalLUA/cBceFJOhgDUEJXr0j0C065WpvI+amOaDdiwGVw== =lLPj X-Approved-For-Group: kuehl@fmi.uni-konstanz.de comp.lang.c++.moderated X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-Length: 1243 X-Status: $$$T X-UID: 0000000001 Originator: clamage@taumet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:11798 comp.lang.c++.moderated:44451 "McNepp" wrote in message news:53e3f3b2.0205302330.67a3eeb5@posting.google.com... > Sure, it may waste a few bytes, but it is supposed to be a simple, > fast, stack-based replacement for dynamic memory allocation on the > heap. This purpose it would serve well enough, and why bother about a > few wasted bytes if the alternative was highly expensive (and, BTW, > wasteful, too) malloc/operator new calls? If that were the only alternative, I wouldn't bother about it. However, if you're going to introduce a language extension, there's no sense crippling it. I wouldn't support any alignment extension which only allowed us to make storage of maximal alignment, since it would be so easy to have the extension give us storage appropriately aligned for a particular type. -Dave [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ] [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ] [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]