--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #28)
> I can commit a patch that fixes the original testcase, but I now think that
> the resolution of requires compiler help of some
> kind, at least for cases like comment 27. It effectively says "if x < y uses
> the built-in operator< for pointers, that comparison yields a total order".
> That's very different to "if x and y are pointers, comparing them yields a
> total order". The library can't tell whether x < y uses a built-in operator
> for pointers, because there could be conversions involved, so the library
> can't decide whether the cast to uintptr_t is needed. suggests
a rather disgusting way for the library to decide whether the built-in operator
for pointers would be used.

Reply via email to