Re: [boost] variant2 never empty guarantees

Subject: Re: [boost] variant2 never empty guarantees
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-09 10:39:30

On 9 June 2017 at 09:26, Gavin Lambert via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

I suppose you could argue (with some justification) that those are not
> "modern", but at least in the Windows world it's still fairly common for
> applications to be 32-bit (even when the OS is almost exclusively 64-bit
> now) until they actually prove they need more memory.

If a 32-bit application runs out of memory on a 64-bit system (due to
address space), this most certainly must be considered programmer error, as
the addressable space is known in advance.

> It's also not uncommon for applications to have memory leaks that
> inevitably end in out of memory errors if left long enough.
>

As a former C99-guy, I would consider fixing ones' leaky applications with
exceptions to be SB (Suspect Behaviour) by the developer.

> And some people religiously disable swap, which can have a similar result.
>

No need to take this into account (I do it as well, though! On my desktop,
I always only have a 400MB swap space, just enough for a mini-dump, just in
case and to make windows stop complaining about it), if one turns off
disk-swapping, you're entering the realm of what in C/C++ would be defined
as UB.

> There's a broad spectrum in between.

Nothing is ever completely black or white, you're right.

degski
-- 
"*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend,
Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798