Re: [boost] [Boost.Pool] TR1?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Pool] TR1?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-12 13:55:18

At Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:15:56 -0500,
Nevin Liber wrote:
> 
> On 12 April 2011 11:53, Phil Bouchard <philippe_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > On 4/12/2011 8:04 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I think you are severely missing the point: it is not implementable, no
> >> matter the cost in complexity, without causing undefined behavior. You're
> >> just not allowed to compare arbitrary pointers with<, and the total
> >> ordering produce by std::less isn't guaranteed to be meaningful.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the clarifications but if the stack and data segments were part
> > of a pool then 'false' returned by is_from() would then be a valid according
> > to the definition of is_from().
> >
> 
> Only if it is implemented the way Steven described it.  You cannot legally
> compare pointers using relationship operators (<, <=, >, >=) unless at least
> one is NULL, 

really, in C++ you can do it if one is NULL?  What result do you get?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com