Should std::variant be nothrow destructible when its aternative has potentially throwing destructor?
TL;DR: see compilers disagree on code by Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/f7G6PTEsh
Why is [conv.qual] paragraph 4 a note?
[conv.qual] paragraph 4 states:
Is there any difference in the initialization order between such two cases?
Consider this example:
Function being considered in overload resolution when evaluating its own requirements
This question is a follow-up for the solution provided here where the OP wanted to provide an output stream operator implementation (operator<<()) for any generic collection for which it is not already defined.
Function being considered in overload resolution when evaulating its own requirements
This question is a follow-up for the solution provided here where the OP wanted to provide an output stream operator implementation (operator<<()) for any generic collection for which it is not already defined.
is it legal to have a c environment where char is 16 bits and short is also 16 bits
I am trying to create (new backend for tinyc) a c compiler for a very odd machine. Its only addressable unit is a 16 bit word, ie it cannot address at the 8 bit byte level. Its natural int size is 16 too.