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.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 02:51, Jens Maurer <jens.maurer@gmx.net> 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

these are presentation slides for P2188R1, whose status
is shown here:

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

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

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