On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:27PM +0200, Herman Geza wrote:
> > struct Point {
> > float x, y, z;
> > };
> > struct Vector {
> > float x, y, z;
> >
> > Point &asPoint() {
> > return reinterpret_cast<Point&>(*this);
> > }
> > };
>
> > Point and Vector have the same layout, but GCC treats them different when
> > it does aliasing analysis. I have problems when I use Vector::asPoint.
> > I use asPoint very trivially, it is very easy to detect (for a human)
> > that references point to the same address. Like
>
> As a "human", I don't see how they are the same. Other than having three
> fields with the same type, and same name, what makes them the same?
Having the same layout makes them "the same".
> What happens when Point or Vector have a fourth field added? What if somebody
> decides to re-order the fields to "float z, x, y;"? Would you expect the
> optimization to be silently disabled? Or would you expect it to guess based
> on the variables names?
Point and Vector "designed" to have the same layout and nobody is allowed
to change this. It worked until now :)
Now, it seems a bad design, as the standard says at 3.10.15
(incomplete summary by me): a stored value can be accessed only with an
lvalue of the dynamic type of the stored object. They justify this with
aliasing. So a Vector shouldn't be accessed via a Point. Undefined
behavior happens if someone access an object via a different type
(unless it's char or unsigned char, which are allowed); same layout
doesn't matter, as Andrew P. said. The compiler is allowed to
generate bad code in this case, I think.
Geza
