From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 11:15:56
me22 wrote:
> I've been working on Yuval's suggestion of (little|big|native)_endian
> wrappers, but ran into a problem. On fundamental types, the wrapper
> works fine, and Beman's integer_cover_operators made it easy to add
> support for integer operations. ( However, why does
> integer_cover_operators use operators<T> and not
> operators2<T,IntegerType> ? I needed to change that to solve an
> ambiguity error. )
>
> The problem comes when wrapping my (newly reimplemented) exact type.
> In that case, deriving the wrapper from integer_cover_operators adds 1
> byte :
> sizeof( long ) = 0x4
> sizeof( boost::big_endian< long > ) = 0x4
> sizeof( boost::exact<24> ) = 0x3
> sizeof( boost::big_endian< boost::exact<24> > ) = 0x4
>
> I could just have a get member function in the wrappers, but that
> loses much of the elegance. Any suggestions for solving this?
Are you implementing the big_endian<T> class as holding a member of type
T? If you do (that's the most logical way, I think), then it sounds most
strange to me. Is it just one compiler that's causing problems? Have you
tried on more than one compiler?