🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec19.001851.22116@microsoft.com>, jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:
> On the contrary, for the test to not prove true would
> mean that the empty base class part has to be implemented by the compiler
> using gratuitous padding, and gratuitous padding is an anathema to
> traditional C/C++ implementation.  

"Gratuitous" is your own judgment.  Some of us disagree.

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.]
--
Prescott K. Turner, Jr.
Liant Software Corp. (developers of LPI languages)
959 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 USA    (508) 872-8700
UUCP: uunet!lpi!pkt                          Internet: pkt@lpi.liant.com