A线的code是胜过千言万语:)这是我的问题:
A line of code is worth a thousand words :) Here is my problem:
/* Platform specific 16-byte alignment macro switch.
On Visual C++ it would substitute __declspec(align(16)).
On GCC it substitutes __attribute__((aligned (16))).
*/
#define ALIGN_16 ...
struct ALIGN_16 A {...};
A* ptr = new A;
A* ptr2 = new A[20];
assert(size_t(ptr) % 16 == 0);
for (int i=0; i<20; ++i)
assert(size_t(ptr2+i) % 16 == 0);
assert(sizeof(A) % 16 == 0);
我能想到的所有断言通过与上证所的支持平台?谢谢你。
Can I expect that all assertions pass on platforms with SSE support? Thank you.
编辑。部分答案。我做了一些测试与VS2008,GCC和ICC。 MS编译器做了对齐两个 PTR 和 PTR2 ,但GCC和ICC没有对齐的 PTR2
EDIT. Partial answer. I did some test with VS2008, GCC and ICC. MS compiler did align both ptr and ptr2, but GCC and ICC failed to align ptr2.
Is有地址的回报对准由C ++的新的操作任何保证?
在换句话说,你可以使用标准来证明你的假设,它应该工作,但在实践中,它可能炸毁你的脸。
In other words, you can use the standard to justify your assumption that it should work, but in practice, it may blow up in your face.
的Visual C ++ 6通过未对齐双打
分配新
正常,所以你去。
Visual C++ 6 did not align doubles
allocated via new
properly, so there you go.