[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
Lawrence Crowl
Lawrence at Crowl.org
Thu Oct 10 22:33:38 CEST 2013
On 10/10/13, Nevin Liber <nevin at eviloverlord.com> wrote:
> On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence at crowl.org> wrote:
>> The problem is that if you need to represent an object with more than
>> one segment (as was necessary for arrays > 64 kB on x86) then
>> requiring a total order within an array places a consistency requirement
>> on computing a total order between arrays.
>
> Didn't that issue already exist in C++98 (at least with respect to
> std::less)?
I think so, but that probably implies that the library hasn't been implemented
on the full range of machines allowed by the base language.
At this point, I think we need to ask if we really do want to support machines
with small segments. Does anyone know of any current such machines?
--
Lawrence Crowl
More information about the ub
mailing list