[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?

Christopher Jefferson chris at bubblescope.net
Thu Oct 10 23:58:58 CEST 2013


On 10 Oct 2013 21:33, "Lawrence Crowl" <Lawrence at crowl.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Both GCC and clang both  implement std::less on pointers with  <, so there
are it seems no such machines with a correct open source C++ implementation
at least.

Chris
>
> --
> Lawrence Crowl
> _______________________________________________
> ub mailing list
> ub at isocpp.open-std.org
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/ub
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/ub/attachments/20131010/32d0ff22/attachment.html 


More information about the ub mailing list