From: "Maxim Yegorushkin" <e-maxim@yandex.ru>
Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@businesswebsoftware.com> wrote:
There's one possible problem I noticed, which is that an allocated buffer will be aligned properly for boost::detail::atomic_count but perhaps might not be aligned properly for char_t (or to whatever buffer_storage_alignment specifies). Let me apply the James Kanze test [*]: is it safe to create a const_string<double> on a SPARC?
[*] See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8670> if you don't know what I'm talking about.
No, it's not safe now. I'll fix it.
But I wonder, why would anyone want to instantiate a string type with double? How is it better than a std::vector<double>, which seems to be a natural choice?
He wasn't suggesting that anyone would. He was suggesting that you don't know the alignment requirements of char_t, so one way to test your alignment assumptions is to use double. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;