C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-17 10:17:01

Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> writes:

| On 17 October 2013 03:38, Peter Sommerlad <peter.sommerlad_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| Hi, just to throw in my 0.02 CHF:
| On 17.10.2013, at 07:27, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| Well, I dream the future with non-uniform memory architectures might make
| that argument wrong again. We might have "pointers" that differ
| substantially, depending if the memory address resides in RAM "directly"
| attached to a CPU or on a different CPU or on a GPU. And comparing such
| pointers wildly might not be the thing you should be allowed to do.
| Just remember, technology development often goes in circles, e.g., we get
| electric cars again after 100+ years, we are reinventing parallel
| programming (a lot of work from the 70s/80s gets rediscovered), etc.
| I understand the fear argument, because (so far) that is the only argument
| being made for not changing the standard to match existing practice.

It is the "only argument being made" once you dismiss all the others you
do not agree with :-)

-- Gaby

SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com