C++ Logo

SG12

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Jason Merrill (jason_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-16 16:49:03


On 10/15/2013 06:39 PM, Nevin Liber wrote:
> The current rule of "calling operator< on pointers can invoke ub at the
> drop of a hat", while historically necessary, is a horrible, horrible rule.

Where is this rule? What I see in the current WP is

"Otherwise, the result of each of the operators is unspecified."

And unspecified is significantly different from undefined.

Jason


SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com