ken@digitas.harvard.edu (Ken Shan) writes:

 >The intent of the following code is to achieve individual
 >initialization of array members.  Is it guaranteed to work according
 >to the current draft standard?
 >
 >    struct T
 >    {
 >        int m_a;
 >        T(int a): m_a(a) { }
 >    };
 >
 >    // ...
 >    {
 >        T *pt = reinterpret_cast<T*>(new char[sizeof(T) * 100]);
 >            // Side question: Should this be reinterpret_cast
 >            // or just static_cast?
 >        for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
 >            new (pt + i) T(i);
 >    }

It should just be static_cast.  Also, you should use `operator
new(sizeof(T) * 100)', not `new char [...]', because otherwise the
resulting pointer is not guaranteed to be properly aligned.  Apart from
that, I think the code is fine.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

Hello,

The intent of the following code is to achieve individual
initialization of array members.  Is it guaranteed to work according
to the current draft standard?

    struct T
    {
        int m_a;
        T(int a): m_a(a) { }
    };

    // ...
    {
        T *pt = reinterpret_cast<T*>(new char[sizeof(T) * 100]);
            // Side question: Should this be reinterpret_cast
            // or just static_cast?
        for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
            new (pt + i) T(i);
    }

Thanks in advance...

--
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
> > ERM failed.  Fixed exchange rates are silly.
> (The first does not imply the second, you know).
Nevertheless, both are true.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]