[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10366] Same destructor order for octave_value:s in frame in std::vector for libstdc++ and libc++

[John W. Eaton]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #10366 (project octave):

If there is no C++ standard guarantee of the order that elements of an array
will be deleted, then I don't think this change should be conditional on
HAVE_LLVM_LIBCXX.

Is there any compatibility reason we need to guarantee the order of execution
for classdef destructors?  If not, then I don't see the point in Octave
forcing a particular order either and in that case, I'd opt to fix the tests
instead.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?10366>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/