Subject: Re: [std-proposals] P1839 and the object representation of subobjects
From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-21 14:23:40
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 22:19, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2020 09:37:08 PDT Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > > There is an object of the proper type at the address. The problem is we
> > > can't get to the address without UB in the first place because the
> > > pointer arithmetic is undefined.
> > But P1839 solves that problem. And this post was written under the
> > rules governed by P1839.
> That was not the consensus of the discussions so far.
> P1839 may need a stronger wording to make it explicit that pointer arithmetic
> on the char-sized backing buffer is well-defined.
I have no idea how
can be any *more* explicit about that. It says that both in the design
part of the paper and in the wording.
STD-PROPOSALS list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups