From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-73217-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8222 invoked by alias); 5 May 2003 14:56:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8128 invoked from network); 5 May 2003 14:56:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 May 2003 14:56:31 -0000
Received: from prospero.boston.redhat.com (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221])
	by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h45EuUH01697;
	Mon, 5 May 2003 10:56:30 -0400
Received: by prospero.boston.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 4046)
	id 62815F8D5F; Mon,  5 May 2003 10:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Cc: tromey@redhat.com, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>,
   Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: On alignment
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3llxpo5sl.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> (Gabriel Dos
 Reis's message of "02 May 2003 15:07:54 +0200")
References: <200303251122.13693.kevin.hendricks@sympatico.ca>
	<wvl1y0vmhdv.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
	<wvlu1drl2kl.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
	<200303251344.59988.kevin.hendricks@sympatico.ca>
	<wvlhe9rkzgm.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
	<16037.6826.35777.756256@cuddles.redhat.com>
	<jen0ii4x27.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
	<20030423124944.GA24593@mail.jlokier.co.uk>
	<87wuhlgq5l.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
	<wvlu1cpdv7s.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
	<87lly1f5ir.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
	<wvllly1dq6q.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
	<m3ist5auzc.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
	<87sms9dmuy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
	<wvlptncd0i2.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
	<16039.44856.826662.680167@cuddles.redhat.com>
	<87znm6utca.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
	<m3llxpo5sl.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:56:00 -0000
Message-ID: <wvld6ixe94o.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090019 (Oort Gnus v0.19) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2

On 02 May 2003 15:07:54 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:

> Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | What will eventually go wrong with what we have now?
> | 
> |     template<typename T>
> |     struct aligner
> |     {
> |       T field;
> |     };
> | 
> |     #define ALIGNOF(TYPE) (__alignof__ (((aligner<TYPE> *) 0)->field))
>
> This, as I understand it from my previous attempt, won't give you the
> right answer (for double, it would give 8 instead of 4).

It will give you the right answer on the trunk (and I just checked in a
patch so it will give you the right answer in 3.3 as well).

> What is wrong with the following code I posted earlier?
>
>     template<typename T>
>       struct alignment {
>
>          struct helper {
>             T datum;
>             helper();
>          };
>
>          static helper instance;
>
>          enum { value = __alignof__ (instance) };
>       };

The alignment of a non-field instance of a class can be greater that the
alignment of the class itself.  Just saying __alignof (helper) should work,
though I'm not sure it's guaranteed to work.  Also, why do you give helper
a constructor?

Tom's example above is directly asking the question they want an answer to;
as long as it works, that's the best way to do it, and it does work now.

Jason