C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?

From: Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:30:20 -0500
On 17 October 2013 19:18, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The implication in question is this:
> p == q => intptr_t(p) == intptr_t(q)
> where p and q are pointers. I am having trouble following how, even on
> such exotic architecture, the implication will be affected.

I can imagine that on a system concerned with security where
sizeof(intptr_t) > sizeof(p) random salt is added to the intptr_t
conversion which is removed when converting back to the pointer type.

> I suppose the other implication that is on the mind of many people but
> not being discussed is
> p != q => intptr_t(p) != intptr_t(q)

I'm not concerned about that, as p -> intptr_t(p) -> p has to result in a
matching pointer. I don't see how that is workable if the implication above
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  (847) 691-1404

Received on 2013-10-18 04:31:02