Skip to content

CWG2751 Order of destruction for parameters for operator functions #1583

Closed
Closed
CWG2751 Order of destruction for parameters for operator functions#1583
Labels
EWGEvolution

Description

@jensmaurer
jensmaurer
opened on Jun 22, 2023

In an ABI with callee-cleanup, the following causes implementation hardship because the order of construction of the parameters for the two overloaded operators is required to be different, causing conflicting requirements on the order of parameter destruction.

  void operator<<(A, B);
  void operator+=(A, B);
  void (*p)(A, B) = cond ? &operator<< : &operator+=;

See CWG2751 for details.

Activity

  1. jensmaurer
    added
    EWGEvolution
    on Jun 22, 2023

  2. erichkeane commented on Nov 7, 2023

    @erichkeane
    erichkeane
    on Nov 7, 2023
    Collaborator

    EWG discussed CWG2751 during the Tuesday Morning session in Kona. The following poll was taken.

    CWG2751 "Order of destruction for parameters for operator functions" not a defect, the proposed implementation strategy can be picked if the implementation so desires.

    SF F N A SA
    6 6 4 0 0

    Result: Consensus

  3. erichkeane
    closed this as completedon Nov 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    EWGEvolution

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions