rnkovacs added a comment. In D59279#1427017 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59279#1427017>, @mgrang wrote:
> Following are the assumptions/limitations of this patch: > > 1. The assumption is that iteration of ordered containers of pointers is > not non-deterministic. > Could you please explain which type of non-determinism we are addressing here? If our issue is that iteration order is not consistent across runs, then an unordered set of //integers// seems just as non-deterministic as an unordered set of //pointers//. On the other hand, if our issue is that pointer values vary between runs, then an //ordered// set of pointers seems just as non-deterministic as an //unordered// set of pointers. Are //unordered// sets of //pointers// distinguished because they lie in the intersection of these categories and thus avoid the most false positive cases? If so, for someone debugging non-deterministic behavior in their code, would it be useful to add a strict option that shows other cases too? If not, maybe we could document our reasons somewhere. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59279/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
