On 06.08.2013, at 17:40, Howard Hinnant wrote: > This behavior mimics the defined/undefined behavior for pointers described in > [expr.eq] and [expr.rel]. j1 and j2 point to the same object, so they are > both equality comparable and less-than comparable. i1, i2 both point to > different objects (none at all), and not to the same object as j1 and j2. > [expr.eq] says that all pointers are equality comparable, and this is > reflected in the above test. However [expr.rel] defines operator<() only for > pointers pointing into the same object.
But comparison between pointers into different objects is unspecified, not undefined. I don't think trapping is a valid outcome. Sebastian _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
