C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [std-proposals] Relax condition for potentially invoked destructor in constructor

From: Lénárd Szolnoki <cpp_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 19:14:46 +0000

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:13:11 -0500
Jody Hagins via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Arthur,
> I've learned to never disagree with you on anything, so I'd like to
> be correctly corrected :-)
> I've always been under the understanding that reordering was only
> granted ACROSS access control boundaries, but everything within the
> same access boundary had a strict ordering.

What's the deal with the following wording then?


"If two pointers point to different non-static data members of the same
object, or to subobjects of such members, recursively, the pointer to
the later declared member is required to compare greater provided
neither member is a subobject of zero size and their class is not a

This pretty much specifies that data members declared later have higher
address, regardless of access control.

Lénárd Szolnoki

Received on 2022-02-25 19:14:54