<p dir="ltr"><br>
On 10 Oct 2013 21:33, "Lawrence Crowl" <<a href="mailto:Lawrence@crowl.org">Lawrence@crowl.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 10/10/13, Nevin Liber <<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <<a href="mailto:Lawrence@crowl.org">Lawrence@crowl.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> The problem is that if you need to represent an object with more than<br>
> >> one segment (as was necessary for arrays > 64 kB on x86) then<br>
> >> requiring a total order within an array places a consistency requirement<br>
> >> on computing a total order between arrays.<br>
> ><br>
> > Didn't that issue already exist in C++98 (at least with respect to<br>
> > std::less)?<br>
><br>
> I think so, but that probably implies that the library hasn't been implemented<br>
> on the full range of machines allowed by the base language.<br>
><br>
> At this point, I think we need to ask if we really do want to support machines<br>
> with small segments. Does anyone know of any current such machines?</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Chris<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Lawrence Crowl<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ub mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:ub@isocpp.open-std.org">ub@isocpp.open-std.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/ub">http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/ub</a><br>
</p>