Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:57:31 +0300
On 27/10/2021 14:44, Yongwei Wu via Std-Discussion wrote:
> When looking up the exact wording of aliasing rules in C++, I am surprised
> to find that much content seems to be gone in the C++20 (draft, N4860)
> under 7.2.1 p11. Specifically, there is no mention of the validity of
> aliasing with "a type that is a (possibly cv-qualified) base class type of
> the dynamic type of the object", which existed in earlier C++ standards.
>
> Also the online link: https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lval#11
>
> I do not think the standard has changed the rule, so I must have missed
> something. Can anyone point to me how to read the rules, maybe pointing me
> to a discussion of the wording change?
https://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue2051
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56878519/what-happened-to-the-aggregate-or-union-type-that-includes-one-of-the-aforement
TL;DR the removed rules have never been applicable.
> When looking up the exact wording of aliasing rules in C++, I am surprised
> to find that much content seems to be gone in the C++20 (draft, N4860)
> under 7.2.1 p11. Specifically, there is no mention of the validity of
> aliasing with "a type that is a (possibly cv-qualified) base class type of
> the dynamic type of the object", which existed in earlier C++ standards.
>
> Also the online link: https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lval#11
>
> I do not think the standard has changed the rule, so I must have missed
> something. Can anyone point to me how to read the rules, maybe pointing me
> to a discussion of the wording change?
https://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue2051
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56878519/what-happened-to-the-aggregate-or-union-type-that-includes-one-of-the-aforement
TL;DR the removed rules have never been applicable.
Received on 2021-10-27 06:57:36