🚀 go-pugleaf

sjm@bcrki65.bnr.ca (Stuart MacMartin) writes:
|In article <BzDs2x.wA@frumious.uucp> uunet.ca!frumious!pat writes:
|>
|>   Two pointers to the same object compare equal.  If two pointers
|
|...but nowhere do I see a statement that (p == q) ==> p and q point
|to the same object, even if p and q are the same type.

Nor do I.  But I think I once saw a discussion of this, and someone
said this would be changed in a future version of the draft.
(My memory of this is vague, though, so I may be imagining things.)


|Is it possible for two objects of the same type to be in different
|segments and compare equal?

I would hope not, if they are different objects.  But the draft
seems to allow it.


|>Would something
|>similar to the following be reasonable?  (It would clearly need
|>much more careful wording and attention to details.)
|>
|>2) In general, the results of the comparisons need not have anything
|>   to do with the objects to which the pointers point.  For example,
|>   it is possible that p and q point to the same object, but p != q.
|>   (But see below.)
|
|Note that this provides your counterexample for    
|
|   (p == q) <==> (ptrcmp(p,q) == 0)

Yes, although this is under my proposal, not under the existing draft.


|>3) The relational operators define a total ordering on the set of
|>   pointers of each type.  (All the normal rules, including
|>   transitivity.)
|
|Is this possible?  Mightn't some objects of one type be in one segment
|and some in another?  (Perhaps I should say "practical", not "possible").

I think it's possible, by doing bitwise comparisons of the pointers
(ignoring padding, if any).  Remember that so far, the comparisons
don't have to be related in any way to the objects pointed to;
I am _not_ asking for a total order on the address space.


|>4) If two pointers p and q (of the same type) are obtained through
|>   sequences of "normal" operations, then
|>
|>      p == q   <==>   p and q point to the same object
|
|I could not find this statement in the current wording.  Is there a 
|reason why the current wording is weaker than this?

I don't know.  The C standard requires both directions of the
implication.  I'm not sure if the concept "p and q point to
the same object" is clearly defined anywhere.


|What do you mean by "normal" operations?
|What are examples of "abnormal" operations?

These were described lower down in my previous posting.
"Normal" operations are the ones whose semantics are defined
by the standard; "abnormal" ones are the others.


|>One might add a library function sameObject(p,q) which would
|>indicate whether p and q point to the same object, no matter
|>how p and q were obtained.
|
|Is this necessary if we have ptrcmp?  If we like the name ptrcmp, shouldn't
|we like the name ptreq?

My idea with the above description of the operators was that ptrcmp
would be unnecessary; the operators could be used instead.


|Also, if p = (Base *)q, should sameObject(p,q) be 1?

Yes.  And also p == q should be 1.  But note that before doing
either comparison, q is converted to a Base* so that one has
two pointers of the same type.

-- 
Patrick Smith
uunet.ca!frumious!pat
pat%frumious.uucp@uunet.ca