NoQ added a comment. In D104616#2830349 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616#2830349>, @xazax.hun wrote:
> In D104616#2829705 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616#2829705>, @RedDocMD > wrote: > >> If `(ptr1 == ptr2)` is false, we can't say anything really. > > Well, I think it depends. If one of the pointers is null, for some platforms, > we can. E.g. null < non-null is probably true on most architectures, and > similarly non-null < null is false. Also null <= anyptr is probably true on > the platforms we care about. > >> If they are not the same, the only way == can return true if the two smart >> pointers were initialized from the same raw pointer. This is of course a >> fatal bug in itself. > > Is it? E.g. two default constructed unique_ptrs both should have null as the > underlying pointer, they should be considered equal, are not the same object, > and this is not a fatal bug. Why not simply delegate this job to `assume(evalBinOp(...))` over raw pointer values, which already has all this logic written down nicely? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
