https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
gcc-bugs at marehr dot dialup.fu-berlin.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc-bugs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #18 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hello,
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> (In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #14)
> > To summarize:
> >
> > * should a wording defect be raised against std::to_address(Ptr), to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #14)
> To summarize:
>
> * should a wording defect be raised against std::to_address(Ptr), to state
> that pointer_traits being well-formed is actually a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #16 from Glen Joseph Fernandes ---
> should a wording defect be raised against std::to_address(Ptr), to state that
> pointer_traits being well-formed is actually a prerequisite?
That's not an omission in the specification of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #14)
> This gets evil really quick: the presence of both value_type and
> element_type in an contiguous iterator will make you smash face-first
> against
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #14 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hello,
(In reply to Glen Joseph Fernandes from comment #11)
> > if it can never be used.
>
> You're misunderstanding. to_address(p) requires that pointer_traits is
> valid. It just doesn't need to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
--- Comment #13 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
> And are you recommending that everyone who defines their custom contiguous
> iterators specializes pointer_traits for them? Call it _quite_ annoying...
Definitely not! When you define a contiguous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|address_of() is broken by |to_address() is broken by
