Created on 2007-08-12.00:00:00 last changed 161 months ago
[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (June, 2008):
Change 6.7.6 [basic.align] paragraph 9 as follows:
If a request for a specific extended alignment in a specific context is not supported by an implementation, the
implementation may reject the request asill-formed. The implementation may also silently ignore the requested alignment. [Note: additionally, a request for runtime allocation of dynamic memoryfor which the requested alignment cannot be honored maybe treated as an allocation failure. —end note]
Notes from the February, 2008 meeting:
The consensus was that such requests should be ill-formed and require a diagnostic. However, it was also observed that an implementation need not reject an ill-formed program; the only requirement is that it issue a diagnostic. It would thus be permissible for an implementation to “noisily ignore” (as opposed to “silently ignoring”) an unsupported alignment request.
The requirements on an implementation when presented with an alignment-specifier not supported by that implementation in that context are contradictory: 6.7.6 [basic.align] paragraph 9 says,
If a request for a specific extended alignment in a specific context is not supported by an implementation, the implementation may reject the request as ill-formed. The implementation may also silently ignore the requested alignment.
In contrast, 9.12.2 [dcl.align] paragraph 2, bullet 4 says simply,
- if the constant expression evaluates to an extended alignment and the implementation does not support that alignment in the context of the declaration, the program is ill-formed
with no provision to “silently ignore” the requested alignment. These two passages need to be reconciled.
If the outcome of the reconciliation is to grant implementations the license to accept and ignore extended alignment requests, the specification should be framed in terms of mechanisms that already exist in the Standard, such as undefined behavior and/or conditionally-supported constructs; “ill-formed” is a category that is defined by the Standard, not something that an implementation can decide.
|2008-10-05 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg1807|
|2008-10-05 00:00:00||admin||set||status: ready -> cd1|
|2008-06-29 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg1676|
|2008-06-29 00:00:00||admin||set||status: drafting -> ready|
|2008-03-17 00:00:00||admin||set||messages: + msg1604|
|2008-03-17 00:00:00||admin||set||status: open -> drafting|