New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[2024-03 LWG Motion 9] Atomic minimum/maximum #6880
Comments
Requesting this be assigned to me |
Note 1 leaves me more confused than educated --- it is very easy to read that there are no pointers that have a weak ordering. Suggest instead: Note 1: The < operator does not establish a strict weak ordering ([tab:cpp17.lessthancomparable][expr.rel]) unless comparing subobjects of the same complete object, where array elements are subobjects of their array. |
The feature macro |
This is still possibly misleading in the case where both complete objects are nested within the same byte array. But the core wording seems a bit unclear on the address of an object whose storage is provided-for... |
Everything else in The new non-member functions like So the feature test macro should match, and also be defined for freestanding. |
Sorry, should have pushed the PR before the weekend. |
Note that the initial pull request #6918 does not revise the comment from the paper. If there is consensus on a clearer wording, let me know and I can apply it. Alternatively, we can defer clarifying the comment to a separate editorial PR after all the Tokyo papers have landed. |
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p0493r5.pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: