Plz check following c++ code: (nothing special, should be compliant to c++ 2nd edition from 1991)
class C
{
// also defines all the methods called in template method below with the obvious name and args.
public: template<typename TEnum> void SetNullableEnumValuePtr(CNullable<TEnum>* aEnumPtr)
{
if(sizeof(TEnum) == 4)
{
this->SetNullableUInt32Ptr(reinterpret_cast<CNullable<UInt32>*>(aEnumPtr));
}
else if (sizeof(TEnum) == 2)
{
this->SetNullableUInt16Ptr(reinterpret_cast<CNullable<UInt16>*>(aEnumPtr));
}
else if (sizeof(TEnum) == 1)
{
this->SetNullableUInt8Ptr(reinterpret_cast<CNullable<UInt8>*>(aEnumPtr));
}
else
{
this->FailEnumSize();
}
}
}
basic conditions class CNullable follows the well known, basic nullable pattern implemented i.e. for c# in certain frameworks but could also be any template with one argument.
as the names imply, TEnum is used for different enum types. i.e. enum FooEnum { foo };
For different platforms/compilers it is true, that with for the same enum type it goes to different if branches: On Win32 all enums are compiled with a size of 4 bytes always. On my MCU it compiles to uint8, if the values of the enum field implies to do so.
1. Not my focus: i'm not sure, if the c++ standard allows compliant compilers to generate enums with different sizes in respect of the required size but i think it is said, that it is compliant.
2. not my focus: it is also obvious that a cleaner / more robust solution would generate explicit template instances for the function for ALL used enum types. however i might do this and hope the compiler/optimizer is smart/compliant enough not to generate extra code for all types.
3. Not my focus: i know that reinterpret_cast can be evil but there is a reason the c++ standard defines it. so please stop downrating my questions just because you dont like it or dont understand it.
4. Not my focus: i know there are certain websites, you can test code on different compilers.
5. would help too: also if you have a better idea how to treat this coding issue you're welcome.
6. My focus:
i wanna focus this question on the issue, if the c++ standard [1] (or any other standard) defines rule(s), that the templates instances for intXX and uintXX (Where XX is the bit width and u indicates a unsigned version of the native integer) must forcefully compile to a code where a reinterpret_cast from CNullable<unsigned intXX>
to CNullable<intXX>
is guaranteed to run properly. it seems to be likely that a straight forward implementation of the tool chain may not cause problems in this case, but i got used to be carefull with such assumptions.
conclusion: if one could give me the reference(s) to chapter inside the (c++) or other standard treading these issues (1 to 6) - that would be great.
thank you!
[1] Please understand the sad reality, that the platform i work on does even not have a ready compiler specification. so it is quite trial and error and i wanna understand the techniques behind to get a better feeling for it - because treading the issue deterministic seems not to be possible since the compiler reference does not give a clear statement what standard it supports: They stated an ETSI standard rather than an iso c++ standard and they didnt give enough info to find the documentation of the standard - no version number, no document number, no document name. when i search for the info given in the compiler documentation on the ETSI page i get > 24.000 results (!) XD
PS: Edit: I request the info: a) Which standards / specifications ensure that this code runs properly?
b) Does anyone have a clean solution for an abstraction using different template instances for different enum types?