On 08/19/13 07:54, Larry Evans wrote:
On 08/19/13 06:59, Thorsten Ottosen wrote: [snip]
On 16-08-2013 15:33, Larry Evans wrote:
On 08/16/13 06:00, Thorsten Ottosen wrote: [snip] That sounds like the basic idea. Alignment may not be needed if we assume some kind of maximal alignment. Sizeof may not be needed either if the syntax for adding objects is
cont.push_back<Derived>( x, y );
Using a templated push_back, IIUC, would require some sort of container, such as std::vector<char> cont, which contains contigous storage, and the push_back should find the next location, i_aligned, in std::vector<char> which is at alignment, alignof(Derived). and would then push_back i_aligned chars, then further push_back sizeof(Derived) char's, the new inplace at cont.begin()+i_aligned.
Does that make sense?
OOPS. If all those push_back's of a char causes the vector to be resized in placed in a different location, then wouldn't that require all the realignments for each element to be recalculated :( Hmmm. Not if &cont[0] is stored at a max aligned location, which I assume it would be since the storage would be created on the heap with new[] which, according to the c++ standard ( can't remember which page or section), returns a maximally aligned storage location. And since the start of cont is maximally aligned, any offsets in that cont with a given alignment would have the same alignment when moved, IIUC. -regards, Larry [snip]