It seems to me that the right thing to do is to fix `__tree` and
`__tree_iterator` to use the appropriate pointer type for all stored pointers.
That is, `__tree_node_base::__right_`, `__tree_iterator::__ptr_`,
`__tree_const_iterator::__ptr_`, and `__tree::__begin_node_` should be pointers
to `__tree_end_node`, because they might point to a `__tree_end_node` that is
not a `__tree_node_base`.
As-is, the code *still* has undefined behavior in the case where the element
type has a higher alignment requirement than that of a pointer, because you
will potentially use a `node_pointer` to point to an element that is not
suitably aligned to be represented as such a pointer value. This problem
doesn't arise if you only use a pointer-to-`T` type to point at a `T` object.
================
Comment at: include/memory:5452-5458
@@ +5451,9 @@
+ {
+ return static_cast<_To>(_FromPtrTraits::pointer_to(__e));
+ }
+
+ _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
+ static _To __from_pointer(_From & __f)
+ {
+ return static_cast<_To>(__f);
+ }
----------------
It seems strange to use `static_cast` here and `reinterpret_cast` below. Even
assuming the `reinterpret_cast` approach works, don't we still have the same
problem if the user uses a fancy pointer type?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6974
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
