Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 868559
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T10:09:37+00:00 2026-05-15T10:09:37+00:00

I have a rather odd problem: I need to maintain a chunk of code

  • 0

I have a rather odd problem: I need to maintain a chunk of code which involves structs. These structs need to be modified by adding fields to them from time to time. Adding to the end of a struct is what you are supposed to do, and any time you add a field to the middle of a struct, you’ve broken the code in a non-trivial way.

It’s become a nightmare to maintain since these do need to be modified occasionally, and the only way to get out of the business of modifying these structs (and having them break due to the layout change of the previous fields) is to completely rewrite a huge swath of code, which is simply not possible.

What I need to do is find a way to make changing the layout of the struct a compile error. Now, I can solve the problem this way:

struct Foo
{
   int *Bar;
   int Baz;
};

#ifdef _x86_
static_assert(_offsetof(Foo, Bar) == 0);
static_assert(_offsetof(Foo, Baz) == 4);
#else
static_assert(_offsetof(Foo, Bar) == 0);
static_assert(_offsetof(Foo, Baz) == 8);
#endif

However, this is a huge amount of work because there are roughly 20 of these structs with 4-10 fields each. I can probably minimize this by only asserting that the last field’s offset is at the correct location, but this is still a lot of manual work.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a compiler trick, C++ template metaprogram trick, or otherwise, that would make this easier?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T10:09:37+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 10:09 am

    you should probably use a form of struct inheritence (c -style) to make this a little easier for everyone to figure out

    basically you would have the struct you dont want modified

    //DO not modify this structure!!!
    struct Foo
    {
       int *Bar;
       int Baz;
    };
    

    and a FooExtensions (or whatever) struct that people can modify willy-nilly

    struct FooExtensions
    {
       struct Foo base;
       //go crazy but keep base as the first thing.
    };
    

    then to pass a FooExtnesions object to a method expecting a Foo just cast it to Foo, the member alignments will work out. this is a more common pattern for maintaining this kind of backwards compatibility. Obviously people can still ignore the convention but this makes it a little easier to succeed.

    you can still add all the static_asserts to make sure that Foo isn’t modified

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 486k
  • Answers 486k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Unfortunately @timestamp is the only variable available. There are various… May 16, 2026 at 8:04 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Remove the </tr> at the end of this line: <tr… May 16, 2026 at 8:04 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Console apps do not have web.config. It needs an 'app.config'. May 16, 2026 at 8:04 am

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.