On Jun 2, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > Ping.
Please make this test pass under C++03, and then commit. — Marshall > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > The attached patch implements your suggestion (without the max). I verified > that this passes on x86 os x and arm android. > > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Marshall Clow <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 28, 2014, at 4:36 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On arm, the maxium alignment is 8. The attached patch tweaks > > meta.trans.other/aligned_storage.pass.cpp so that it passes on arm. (The > > test currently assumes that alignment goes up to at least 16.) > > Nico — > > I’m a bit leery of > + static_assert(std::alignment_of<T1>::value == alignof(T1), ""); > b/c I’m not sure that it tests what we want to test here. > > Is there some way that we can use max_align_t in this test? > > Maybe something like (untested code): > static_assert ( std::alignment_of<T1>::value == std::max(16, > alignof(std::max_align_t)); > > Why the max? On arm, alignof(max_align_t) is 8 (just like alignof(T1)), so > max(16, alignof(max_aling_t)) is 16, while std::alignment_of<T1>::value is 8. > > static_assert(std::alignment_of<T1>::value == > alignof(std::max_align_t), ""); > > does work though, if you like that better. Should I just > s/alignof(T1)/alignof(std::max_align_t)/ in my patch? > > > — Marshall > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
