Thank you all for suggestions on where to take my concerns. I will look
into moving to a more appropriate forum. Though I am presently unaware, how
would I be able to send mail to the appropriate reflector (I assume EWG)
for the discussion.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 02:51, Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On 22/02/2023 03.53, connor horman via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > I just learned of P2815, and I do not know of another place I can
> respond to it, so I'm going to answer here.
>
> As shown here:
>
> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1489
>
> these are presentation slides for P2188R1, whose status
> is shown here:
>
> https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/895
>
> The actual paper is here:
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2188r0.html

Apparently it is on R1 now, which has no proposed wording because the
author "[didn't] think it addresses all the issues" with permissions and
constraints on the optimizers and users.

>
>
> Note the last comment in the github issue:
>
> "guidance was given to the authors, and we expect to see an omnibus
> solution to the problem, based on #1364."
>
> and #1364 is
>
> P2434R0 Nondeterministic pointer provenance (S. Davis Herring)
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2434r0.html
>
> That doesn't sound like an approach is being pursued that would
> disable most pointer-related optimizations.
>
Keeping that seems to be incompatible with Important Aspect 5.
`opaque_operation` could do absolutely anything after comparing the
pointers, including aborting.

>
> Jens
>