C++ aliasing rules
Dan Nicolaescu
dann@godzilla.ICS.UCI.EDU
Fri May 17 12:13:00 GMT 2002
Now that 3.1 is out of the way we can reopen this discussion...
For reference the start of this thread is at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2002-04/msg00049.html
mike stump <mrs@windriver.com> writes:
> > To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@godzilla.ICS.UCI.EDU>
> > Cc: mike stump <mrs@windriver.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
> > From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:44:05 +0100
>
> > I don't see how Mike's statement answers my question.
>
> Yes, I agree, I don't think it does.
>
> > I would probably support writing that into the standard. But I
> > don't think that's what it says now.
>
> A hard line would be we should be conservative, and get it written
> into the standard first. I think it would be reasonable for the
> standard to say they don't alias.
>
> If we want to lead the standard, I think we can. Because the standard
> isn't perfectly clear, it would be good to document what we did.
If we decide to lead the standard, I volunteer the write the patch and
the associated GCC documentation.
Somebody else will have to take care about the standardization
process...
Who can make a decision about this?
--dan
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list