🚀 go-pugleaf

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 ------------------