This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD status.

### 3016. `optional` and over-aligned types

Section: 22.5.3 [optional.optional] Status: NAD Submitter: Tim Song Opened: 2017-09-04 Last modified: 2020-09-06

Priority: 3

View all other issues in [optional.optional].

View all issues with NAD status.

Discussion:

LWG issue 2555 added "It is implementation-defined whether over-aligned types are supported (C++14 §3.11)." to the specification of `std::experimental::optional` in LFTS, however that issue wasn't moved until `optional` had already been merged to the IS working paper, so it isn't present in the specification of `std::optional`. Should the same rule be added for `std::optional` as well?

[2017-11 Albuquerque Wednesday night issues processing]

Priority set to 3; Casey to provide rationale for closing as NAD.

2018-11 Closed as NAD with the adoption of P0899R1

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4687.

1. Edit 22.5.3 [optional.optional] p1 as indicated:

   > […] The contained value shall be allocated in a region of the `optional<T>` storage suitably aligned for the type `T`. It is implementation-defined whether over-aligned types are supported (6.7.6 [basic.align]). When an object of type `optional<T>` is contextually converted to `bool`, the conversion returns `true` if the object contains a value; otherwise the conversion returns `false`.