C++ Logo

std-proposals

Advanced search

Re: [std-proposals] Replace an object -- but retain old object if new object fails to construct

From: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:24:23 -0700
On Wednesday, 29 October 2025 07:32:32 Pacific Daylight Time Frederick
Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> 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?

There is no consensus.

Some are of the same opinion as you. I am.

Some others think that so long as there's a way to do it without calling out
to user code, it can be called "trivial".

I disagree because I don't want to wait for that operation. I want relocations
now. In fact, I want them in 2005, when Qt began doing them anyway. It's
memcpy/memmove, period.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng.

Received on 2025-10-29 21:24:39