Travis Vitek wrote:
>  
> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Travis Vitek wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>> I searched library headers and sources for how we define unions and
>>>> with the exception of limits_bits.cpp we always follow this rule.
>>>> Unless there is a reason not to make this change to aligned_union,
>>>> I think we should change both limits_bits.cpp and aligned_union to
>>>> always define the member with the more strict alignment requirement
>>>> first, just for peace of mind.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any reason/advantage to having the char buffer first?
>>>>
>>> If the first member is used to define the alignment, then you have to
>>> know (at compile time) which of the union members has the strictest
>>> alignment requirement so that it can be put first.
>> Yes. But putting the char buffer first doesn't obviate the
>> need to do this, does it?
> 
> No, I'm just poking another hole in the policy of always putting the
> most strictly aligned member first. If I can't reliably determine the
> most strictly aligned member, it makes it a tad difficult to declare it
> first.
> 
> So now the policy becomes 'put the one that you think has the most
> stringent alignment requirement on platform X'.

That's essentially been the guideline in existing code.
What do you suggest as an improvement?

Martin