home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!maxtal
- From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller)
- Subject: Re: Pointer comparisons
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.043719.29077@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU
- Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
- References: <1992Dec19.001851.22116@microsoft.com> <1992Dec22.174327.8903@lpi.liant.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 04:37:19 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1992Dec22.174327.8903@lpi.liant.com> pkt@lpi.liant.com (Scott Turner) writes:
- >Moreover, such padding is in the C++ tradition. The ARM requires padding
- >in two places, where the principal intent is to support
- >
- > p and q point to different objects implies p!=q
- >
- > 1. 5.3.2 "The size of any class object is larger than zero."
- >
- > 2. 5.3.3 "This implies that an operator new() can be called with an
- > argument zero. In this case, a pointer to an object is returned.
- > Repeated such calls return pointers to different objects."
- > [An example follows to demonstrate that the intent is that
- > distinguishable pointers values be returned.]
-
- IF this intent is to be fully supported, additional words would be
- required to ensure base subobjects and included member objects
- were also padded?
-
- IF these words are not added, then the intent is not supported
- fully, and the clauses above might as well be dropped?
-
- I.E. I am asking if there is any point retaining the status
- quo, or any other position where full pointer identity
- is not supported yet padding is required.
-
-
- --
- ;----------------------------------------------------------------------
- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
- Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
- ;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------
-