That expanded view also comprising previous processes may be okay from a theoretical standpoint.   However, if those types are not implicit-lifetime types, the compiler or C++ runtime or optimizer or some safety checker would perhaps need some hint about the already started objects residing there.   From a practical standpoint, demanding the program to explicitly start the lifetime (or a better operation like resuming or sharing the lifetime) would perhaps be useful?   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:So 11.01.2026 19:48 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] User-Defined Trivial Constructors Anlage:signature.asc An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]>; On Sunday, 11 January 2026 15:07:40 Brasilia Standard Time Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals wrote: > Lifetime has already started, if it is in shared memory or files? > > Yes and no. The process had no notion of objects being represented there. I am arguing that "the process" should have an expanded view comprising the previous process which started the lifetime of those objects. They are like threads, only the VM space is not entirely shared. The fact that the address space may be different and that there may have been no overlapping time in which the two processes had this segment of memory mapped should be completely irrelevant. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org  Principal Engineer - Intel Data Center - Platform & Sys. Eng. -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals