CWG2751 Order of destruction for parameters for operator functions

[jensmaurer]

In an ABI with callee-cleanup, the following causes implementation hardship because the order of construction of the parameters for the two overloaded operators is required to be different, causing conflicting requirements on the order of parameter destruction.

  void operator<<(A, B);
  void operator+=(A, B);
  void (*p)(A, B) = cond ? &operator<< : &operator+=;

See CWG2751 for details.

[erichkeane]

EWG discussed CWG2751 during the Tuesday Morning session in Kona. The following poll was taken.

CWG2751 "Order of destruction for parameters for operator functions" not a defect, the proposed implementation strategy can be picked if the implementation so desires.

SF	F	N	A	SA
6	6	4	0	0

Result: Consensus