On 2009-05-15 21:11, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry but I just couldn't find time to answer this before.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Kim Barrett <kab.conundrums@verizon.net> wrote:
At 7:17 PM -0300 5/5/09, Brad Spencer wrote: In boost/aligned_storage.hpp, the class template boost::aligned_storage defines its address member function thusly:
void* address() { return this; } const void* address() const { return this; }
I'm not 100% sure, but this could be very wrong as, IIRC, there is no guarantee that for non PODS the address of the first element (i.e. aligned_storage.data_) is the same as 'this'.
but why doesn't aligned storage implements address() as:
void * address { return this.data_.data_.buf; }
BTW, I see that boost optional actually uses its own implementation of aligned storage,
Indeed.. whose code is not like the one above.
whose address member function returns a pointer to a char buffer, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Precisely... a char* is explcitely allowed to alias any object, so, for Boost.Optional at least, the warning is clearly spurious.
Has this issue been reported to gcc, then? I searched their bugzilla and didn't find anything relevant. I'm also curious whether someone has found a workaround for this. I'd like to patch optional.hpp, so I can keep building with -Werror. Regards, Thomas Sondergaard