[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
Jason Merrill
jason at redhat.com
Wed Oct 16 23:49:03 CEST 2013
On 10/15/2013 06:39 PM, Nevin Liber wrote:
> The current rule of "calling operator< on pointers can invoke ub at the
> drop of a hat", while historically necessary, is a horrible, horrible rule.
Where is this rule? What I see in the current WP is
"Otherwise, the result of each of the operators is unspecified."
And unspecified is significantly different from undefined.
Jason
More information about the ub
mailing list