Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 22:56:53 +0100
On 22/02/2023 13.56, connor horman via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> 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.
Join your standardization organization and become a member of WG21, then get yourself added
to the reflectors you want.
Jens
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 02:51, Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden] <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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
>
>
>
> 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.
Join your standardization organization and become a member of WG21, then get yourself added
to the reflectors you want.
Jens
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 02:51, Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden] <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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
>
>
Received on 2023-02-22 21:56:57