C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Lawrence Crowl (Lawrence_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-10 15:33:38

On 10/10/13, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The problem is that if you need to represent an object with more than
>> one segment (as was necessary for arrays > 64 kB on x86) then
>> requiring a total order within an array places a consistency requirement
>> on computing a total order between arrays.
> Didn't that issue already exist in C++98 (at least with respect to
> std::less)?

I think so, but that probably implies that the library hasn't been implemented
on the full range of machines allowed by the base language.

At this point, I think we need to ask if we really do want to support machines
with small segments. Does anyone know of any current such machines?

Lawrence Crowl

SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com