From ecb60d863904e291afb6c85ab9f90c14c0919121 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Evan Wallace Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 01:55:08 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed ref to effects of invalid pointer values. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Updated the Note describing "invalid pointer values" to refer to [basic.stc] rather than [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]. The relevant description of "invalid pointer values" reads: "Indirection through an invalid pointer value and passing an invalid pointer value to a deallocation function have undefined behavior. Any other use of an invalid pointer value has implementation-defined behavior." Previously the reference was correct, as this text was in [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]/4, but the text was moved to [basic.stc]/4 by P0137R1; without updating the reference. The Note also incorrectly claims that using an invalid pointer value is always undefined, when it can be implementation defined in certain cases, but I did not fix this in this commit; as updating the reference makes this nuance sufficiently clear. This is an editorial issue as it only changes non-normative text. --- source/basic.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/source/basic.tex b/source/basic.tex index d1f0ad04b7..434f5fed0b 100644 --- a/source/basic.tex +++ b/source/basic.tex @@ -3220,7 +3220,7 @@ the referenced complete object has previously been declared reachable~(\ref{util.dynamic.safety}). \begin{note} The effect of using an invalid pointer value (including passing it to a -deallocation function) is undefined, see~\ref{basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation}. +deallocation function) is undefined, see~\ref{basic.stc}. This is true even if the unsafely-derived pointer value might compare equal to some safely-derived pointer value. \end{note} It is \impldef{whether an implementation has relaxed or strict pointer