▲ | nickelpro 7 months ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
For unique_ptr: This is not a problem that can be solved by the standards committee, they don't control the SysV / Itanium / Win64 standards. You can still use raw pointers if you want to, nothing has been lost from C. For restrict: Universally supported as `__restrict`, thus not a priority for anyone to "officially" solve. Most major performance complaints fall into this category. Eg, std::regex is bad, sure, but nobody uses std::regex so fixing it doesn't matter. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | einpoklum 7 months ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> This is not a problem that can be solved by the standards committee SysV/Itanium/Win64 knows nothing about the abstract difference between a 64-bit value and a 64-bit value inside a class instance. Don't see what prevents the solution from the language side. > Universally supported as `__restrict` 1. That's not C++. If we're talking about what compilers can offer outside the language standard - that's a different discussion. We don't have to standardize, then, just get a working implementation somewhere and lobby other compiler-makers to adopt it. A compiler might implement Baxter's "safe mode" idea as a non-standard extension, for example. 2. Even the compilers supoorting `__restrict` only support it for parameters of functions - nowhere else. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|