It is better to call it trivial (even if there is resigning going on) so that the implementations don't differ so much for the language user.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Mi 29.10.2025 15:32 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] Replace an object -- but retain old object if new object fails to construct An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Frederick Virchanza Gotham <cauldwell.thomas_at_[hidden]>; On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 2:29 PM Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > > Then memcpy/memmove don't have special behavior, but you >> are also not to allowed to assume byte identity or copy/move manually. > > That's what we currently have. There are reasons why we have those > relocation functions, including that vtbl re-signing. But are we all in agreement that re-signing (or re-encrypting) a pointer is __not__ trivial ? And therefore, that all polymorphic object are __not__ trivially relocatable on arm64e? -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals