dcheng abandoned this revision.
dcheng added a comment.
OK, thanks for highlighting the proposed resolution.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13080
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-co
mclow.lists added a comment.
Please DO NOT commit this patch.
See http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2224 for a discussion of
this code, and the (proposed) resolution is that this is undefined behavior.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13080
_
thakis added a subscriber: thakis.
thakis added a comment.
mclow should review this, not me.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13080
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Daniel Cheng via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> dcheng added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13080#251324, @dblaikie wrote:
>
> > I'd still be curious to see a stronger justification from the standard
> > about this.
> >
> > I know y
dcheng added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13080#251324, @dblaikie wrote:
> I'd still be curious to see a stronger justification from the standard
> about this.
>
> I know you mentioned/quoted the definition of ~unique_ptr in the standard -
> but I'm not sure that is meant to imply obs
dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
dblaikie added a comment.
I'd still be curious to see a stronger justification from the standard
about this.
I know you mentioned/quoted the definition of ~unique_ptr in the standard -
but I'm not sure that is meant to imply observable behavior during
destru
dcheng created this revision.
dcheng added a reviewer: thakis.
dcheng added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This better matches the behavior of MSVC and libstdc++: neither
standard library sets the stored pointer to null when destroying the
unique_ptr.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13080
Files:
include/
