Subject: Re: [boost] Question about the weak_ptr constructor with lock() call
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-20 14:56:46
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Maybe the cheaper (and arguably more common) version could be used when it
> is known that the virtual inheritance is not in play?
It's still undefined behavior, even though it would work.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk