[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: vitek
Date: Thu Jun 19 15:52:34 2008
New Revision: 669735
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=669735&view=rev
Log:
2008-06-19 Travis Vitek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
STDCXX-926
[...]
Modified: stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/rw/_meta_other.h
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/rw/_meta_other.h?rev=669735&r1=669734&r2=669735&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/rw/_meta_other.h (original)
+++ stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include/rw/_meta_other.h Thu Jun 19 15:52:34 2008
@@ -37,50 +37,318 @@
[...]
+template <size_t _Size, size_t _Align = __rw_default_alignment<_Size>::value>
struct __rw_aligned_storage
{
+ _RWSTD_STATIC_ASSERT (_Size != 0,
+ "Unsupported size");
+
+ _RWSTD_STATIC_ASSERT ((_Align & (_Align - 1)) == 0 || _Align == 0,
+ "Unsupported alignment"); // expect power of 2
+
+ _RWSTD_STATIC_ASSERT (_Align <= _RWSTD_TT_MAX_ALIGNMENT,
+ "Unsupported alignment"); // expect less than max
+
typedef union {
- unsigned char __data [_Len];
- // not implemented
+ unsigned char __size [_Size];
+
+ typename
+ __rw_aligned_storage_impl<_Align>::_C_type __align;
I believe there are platforms where unions are aligned on
the boundary given by the first member. This one looks like
it might be one of them: http://tinyurl.com/472744. Unless
I'm mistaken we should switch the order of the two members
to make sure the union is properly aligned.
Also, strictly speaking, names of data members should have
the _C_ prefix (double underscores are used for locals and
function parameters).
Martin
