Fernando Cacciola wrote: [...]
>> Given the fact optional<>::m_storage is aligned like a bool...: >> > It is not aligned like a bool... Well it depends on the platform but if sizeof(bool) == sizeof(int) on Intel, m_storage will be aligned to the next word boundary i.e. aligned like an integer. >> - Maybe aligned_storage<> should always destruct its object. It >> would be the user's responsability to construct the object before >> its destruction, otherwise the result would be undefined. >> > Why would this be useful? I don't know, it is just another alternative that I personally prefer. >> - Maybe we could create 2 separate type lists if optional<> is used >> many times in the same object, gathering m_initialized types and >> m_storage in separate lists: >> > What for ? I think bool arrays use bitfields to store their values and optional_members types could be properly aligned. Philippe A. Bouchard _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost