C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [ub] *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: C provenance semantics proposal

From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 13:04:50 +0200
On 13/04/2019 12.07, Freek Wiedijk wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>> So, it seems the opinion of WG14 in C DR 260 is at odds with the current
>> normative text. Maybe WG14 wants to revisit and update C DR 260, at
>> least with a marker "obsolete" or so.
> I thought that after the C standard gets a new version,
> the DR's before that automatically become "obsolete",
> because they are supposed to have been integrated in the
> standard after that?


However, C DR 260 is from 2004 and doesn't seem to propose
a change in wording; instead, it just interprets the existing
normative text. Yet, I'm failing to reconcile the "committee
response" in C DR 260 with the C11 text about pointer equality.

But I gather the whole "provenance" exercise is intended to
address this.


Received on 2019-04-13 13:04:55