[dooglius]

The concrete model was raised explicitly as a possible option, why can't I compare to that? TFA says that the status quo is ambiguous.

>Ptr2int casts were never legal

Citation on this? The existence of uintptr_t seems to say otherwise.

>That ship already sailed

In principle, I see no reason preventing future versions of the standard from defining previously-undefined behavior. That said, you are probably right in a realpolitik sense.

[Blaisorblade0]

Should have been more careful — in C and C++ they were implementation-defined. But both theory and practice did not mandate a concrete model — GCC already violates that and implements a mishmash of PVI and PNVI.

From N2176, Sec. 6.3.2.3, p. 5-6: > An integer may be converted to any pointer type. Except as previously specified, the result is implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned, might not point to an entity of the referenced type, and might be a trap representation.

> Any pointer type may be converted to an integer type. Except as previously specified, the result is implementation-defined. If the result cannot be represented in the integer type, the behavior is undefined. The result need not be in the range of values of any integer type.

AFAICT, that doesn’t even guarantee that a roundtrip is the identity — which C++ mandates and is still the case: http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.reinterpret.cast#5

EDIT: GCC does have those restrictions in place already: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.1.0/gcc/Arrays-and-poi...

and since a while (earliest relevant docs I could find easily): https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.1.1/gcc/Arrays-and-poin...

EDIT2: LLVM doesn’t document this “implementation-defined behavior” (or most others), even if docs are explicitly required by the standard; but it does use pointer provenance in practice already, but not in a way that’s easy to explain.