From -3303805961279347881 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,3b19a004e78de1c9 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-03-05 07:35:13 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Standard for order of base-class specification? Message-ID: <9406502.10222@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia References: Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 15:35:13 GMT Lines: 21 holcomb@wg.com (Edgar Holcomb) writes: >Is it dangerous to assume the structure of an instance of a >class with multiple base classes based on the order in which >the base classes are specified? Yes. >Is it safe to assume that, within the >Derived object, the BaseA sub-object will be at offset zero >and the BaseB sub-object will be at offset sizeof( BaseA )? No. >I don't know if the language defines this, or if it's >compiler specific. It's highly implementation-dependant. -- Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au