From 451730749253155682
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,e94695845965b249
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-12-05 15:22:43 PST
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock)
Subject: Re: Zero-length structures and pointer comparisons
Message-ID: <1992Dec05.012131.14948@microsoft.com>
Date: 05 Dec 92 01:21:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <1992Dec2.205330.10372@meaddata.com> <5305@holden.lulea.trab.se>
Lines: 15

In article <5305@holden.lulea.trab.se> jbn@lulea.trab.se (Johan Bengtsson) writes:
|Not being pro total ordering, allow me to point out that compilers
|for segmented architectures of course would keep compatibility switches
|to disable the total oredring property, gaining some speed.  Also,
|customers of those programs will tend to buy faster computers over time,
|so the specifications can still be met, only with more modern hardware.
|I see no real problem here.

Actually it would be such a big lose on PC architectures that I would
suspect that compilers for such would ship with total ordering off
by default, and with total ordering only enabled in strict compatibility mode.

Thus in practice forcing PCs to implement it wouldn't help you because
you couldn't or wouldn't in practice use it anyway.