[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