Afaik a (static) thread local variable is destroyed (immediately ?) when the associated thread terminates.

Afaik a (static) thread local variable is destroyed (immediately ?) when the associated thread terminates.

Afaik a (static) thread local variable is destroyed (immediately ?) when the associated thread terminates.

I’m implementing my own version of standard-compliant containers. I read the following. It states that elements should be destroyed using the allocator destroy. Does it suggest a container must call the destructor of elements, even if it is trivial? My interpretation is we should first have the need to call the destructor. If so, we must use the allocator destroy. Otherwise, we don’t need to call allocator destroy either. Under this interpretation, we can skip calling allocator destroy for elements with a trivial destructor. This can lead to optimization in sequence containers.

this is a follow up question to c++20 gps_clock initilize from string.

Lets imagine that we want to create alias for customization point object, like std::ranges::advance.

This is a follow-up question to Why std::stable_sort does not compile when std::sort does?

This is a follow-up question to Why std::stable_sort does not compile when std::sort does?

This is a follow-up question to Why std::stable_sort does not compile when std::sort does?

Closed 55 secs ago.