| Issue |
136800
|
| Summary |
[libc++] Should we backport `hash<nullptr_t>` and conditionally enabled `hash` from P0513R0?
|
| Labels |
question,
libc++,
lwg-issue
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
frederick-vs-ja
|
[P0513R0](https://wg21.link/p0513r0) resolved [LWG2543](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2543), [LWG2791](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2791), [LWG2809](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2809), and [LWG2817](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2817). Among these LWG issues, LWG2543 (`hash<nullptr_t>`) and LWG2817 (conditionally enabled `hash`, affecting `hash<unique_ptr>`) affects pre-C++17 utilities.
Currently there's implementation divergence:
- libc++ doesn't backport LWG2543 or LWG2817.
- libstdc++ backports LWG2817 but not LWG2543.
- MSVC STL backports both LWG2543 or LWG2817.
Should we backport LWG2543 and/or LWG2817?
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
