Re: [boost] Re: Re: optional<>: size optimization

[Joel de Guzman]

Fernando Cacciola wrote:

> padding 100%, but which will be quite easy to use is this:
> 
> template
> struct aligned_storage
> {
>   void const* address() const ;
>   void*   address();
> 
>   // If tag_t fits in the padding, it is allocated there,
>   // else it is allocated separately (but in here)
>   tag_t const& tag() const ;
>   tag_t&   tag();
> }

Funny, that was my first prototype :o)...
Yes, that's very good, if it's possible to implement
I was concerned about, emmm...,  alignment issues.
I reckon tag_t type should be enforced to be an integral 
of some size.

-- 
Joel de Guzman
joel at boost-consulting.com
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net

___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Re: [boost] Re: Re: optional<>: size optimization

[Giovanni Bajo]

Gennadiy Rozental <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In fact it might be tempting to use all of them available:

Yes. optional<> might not need it, but I guess variant<> could use them.

BTW, is there a redist archive for variant<>? I'd like to test it, but I
found an old link to a version which is not 1.30.0 compatible (MPL headers
mainly). I see that the Sandbox version has been updated but I'm way too
lazy to download the whole Sandbox just for it :)
And, wasn't it accepted into Boost (I managed to miss the release, damn - I
really like this library)? So, why was it not in 1.30.0, or at least in the
CVS HEAD now?

Giovanni Bajo

___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost