C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?

From: Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:33:38 -0700
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

Received on 2013-10-10 22:33:40