vsavchenko added a comment. In D104616#2829705 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104616#2829705>, @RedDocMD wrote:
> The only method that I think can be realistically modelled is `==` (and thus > `!=`). If both the operands refer to the same `unique_ptr`, we know `==` > returns true. 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. So perhaps we can ignore this case and > only consider the first case. > The ordering operators I guess can't be handled because there is no way to > statically tell in general the address of some value. We have the following > deductions, nevertheless, mathematically: > Let `ptr1` and `ptr2` be two `std::unique_ptr` objects. > If `(ptr1 == ptr2)` is true: > > - `ptr1 < ptr2` is false > - `ptr1 > ptr2` is false > - `ptr1 <= ptr2` is true > - `ptr1 >= ptr2` is true > > If `(ptr1 == ptr2)` is false, we can't say anything really. Sounds good to me! 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
