Frederico,

You missed the point entirely.

The fact that you can implement these things is cool. Truly. It's
impressive, and you deserve some acclaim for doing it without breaking ABI.

The fact that nobody has explained the point of doing it is... The point.
It's an implementation burden for what it seems like no actual reason,
because the "why" has not been explained.

Porque?


On Sun, Apr 14, 2024, 21:56 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:32 PM Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
> > That's great, but only if your implementation isn't hacky, non-portable
> and
> > full of UB. It might show that the data is present so that they can
> implement
> > it, but there are other ways of showing the data is present than to use
> it in
> > hacky ways.
>
>
> When I write a paper and provide a platform-specific "possible
> implementation", I can write platform-specific code. Code that has
> undefined behaviour according to the ANSI C++ Standard can have
> well-defined behaviour according to the compiler and platform in
> question.
>
> But anyway more to the point: I don't expect the compiler vendor to
> copy-paste my code into their compiler (which might be written in C
> anyway). They can implement the new feature in assembler if they want.
> The point of my "possible implementation" is to show where the data is
> and how it can be gotten.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>