I see that there is some special code in type_with_alignment for Borland C++,
partly because it is broken and partly because we can do a better job using
compiler-specific features.
Why not do the same for other compilers? For instance, on GCC:
template<typename T>
struct alignment_of
{ BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(std::size_t, value = __alignof__(T)); };
and
template<std::size_t Align>
struct type_with_alignment
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__)) type {}; };
template<> struct type_with_alignment<1>
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__(1))) type {}; };
template<> struct type_with_alignment<2>
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__(2))) type {}; };
template<> struct type_with_alignment<4>
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__(4))) type {}; };
template<> struct type_with_alignment<8>
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__(8))) type {}; };
template<> struct type_with_alignment<16>
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__(16))) type {}; };
template<> struct type_with_alignment<32>
{ struct __attribute__((__aligned__(32))) type {}; };
It'll reduce the compile time for this platform and give us exact answers. The
only concern I can see is that we might miss some important alignment number
(say, 17); we could avert this problem by creating everything from 1 to 32,
and it would still be much simpler than the current code.
Would anyone object to me making this change for GCC?
Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
