std::ios_base::iword/pword
might be misspecifiedSection: 31.5.2.6 [ios.base.storage] Status: New Submitter: Jiang An Opened: 2022-02-14 Last modified: 2022-03-04
Priority: 4
View all other issues in [ios.base.storage].
View all issues with New status.
Discussion:
Currently 31.5.2.6 [ios.base.storage] p5 and p8 say "On failure, a valid long&/void*&
initialized to 0
". Such wording seems wrong, because a long&/void*&
variable or
return value can't be initialized with 0
. And the values of referenced objects may be underspecified,
because an implementation may reuse the same long/void*
objects on failure, and thus it's insufficient
to specify the initial values of these objects only.
[2022-03-04; Reflector poll]
Set priority to 4 after reflector poll.
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N4901.
Modify 31.5.2.6 [ios.base.storage] as indicated:
long& iword(int idx);-3- […]
-4- […] -5- Returns: On successiarray[idx]
. On failure, anvalidlvalue of typelong
with value&0L
initialized to.0
void*& pword(int idx);-6- […]
-7- […] -8- Returns: On successparray[idx]
. On failure, anvalidlvalue of typevoid*
with a null pointer value&initialized to. -9- Remarks: After a subsequent call to0
pword(int)
for the same object, the earlier return value may no longer be valid.