-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
P3074R4 trivial unions (was std::uninitialized<T>
)
#1734
Comments
EWG telecon 31th January: P3074R1: We prefer language based solution over library based solution SF/F/N/A/SA Consensus. |
P3074R1 std::uninitialized<T> (Barry Revzin) |
P3074R2 std::uninitialized<T> (Barry Revzin) |
EWG discussed P3074R2 in Tokyo on Thursday. P3074 std::uninitialized: EWG is interested in solving presented problem (lazy initialization).
Consensus. P3074 std::uninitialized: EWG prefers language solution to presented problem over std::uninitialized library type.
Not consensus. P3074 std::uninitialized: Require to have language feature to appear only in limited context.
Not consensus. |
P3074R3 trivial union (was std::uninitialized<T>) (Barry Revzin) |
As of R3, this no longer impacts library. |
Poll: P3074R3 — trivial union (was std::uninitialized), we are interested in pursuing solution “trivial union”.
Poll: P3074R3 — trivial union (was std::uninitialized), we are interested in pursuing solution “just make it work”.
Winner!!! Poll: P3074R3 — trivial union (was std::uninitialized), we would rather have a library solution.
|
P3074R4 trivial unions (was std::uninitialized<T>) (Barry Revzin) |
std::uninitialized<T>
)
Seen in EWG on Thursday: Poll: P3074r4 — trivial unions (was std::uninitialized): forward to LEWG and CWG for inclusion in C++26.
Result: consensus in favor |
LWG looked at this in Wroclaw: Poll: LWG is happy with the library wording in P3074r4 for C++26? |F|A|N| |
CWG 2024-11-22 in Wroclaw: Reviewed D3074R5. This adds situations with undefined behavior that were previously ill-formed.
Whether the added undefined behavior in this low-level facility is worth the benefits of the proposed facility is a judgment call that EWG should make explicitly. |
std::uninitialized<T>
)std::uninitialized<T>
)
P3074R0 constexpr union lifetime (Barry Revzin)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: