From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13D7F3858C2C;
 Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:23:11 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 13D7F3858C2C
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id t18so9199403wrb.0;
 Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=8GsO3KtL7aexSmAge7UtF1tyJPTCwyb+IhzU97FncjQ=;
 b=pRtPd1EjdjNB0VayG36on3uiZoL6LvcForfztlS1ifRfDk0AjYJV62uguR7NuG56G3
 hh0aIG2RAboo6fzlzhSDIRGS6H5UKqg6/ME+T/c8DthnJ3qR4gYF7RblIqsyIw+JZM9d
 pVMjO4/l6Qtp990Koihwezxm+XGry/44Y30/IJYOltF6wL71uU3884eq1GXg2+msy6YX
 Y6ZH2Z+c95YdJq7kM2svKid0PHZvb0z1aEgJW2eST/WiIgZ+tkSKwZNSDlfc59BfU2gG
 dBGn9JnQuIO6C0SuCGdVmYdDcpBicGHuWwihd81vRgV5lzjjHeiXQvZA/Zx6/JC1GQ0H
 cr1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53308qtcJqgCY1nGaLBtqYYhv+We/YIW24VnVmIAz3hdsDeAVBuP
 pn2hi4SoklzezwXffx0n6r/w3uUukloq9eR9lAM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrjgN6vCGKU+PYch3bbAzWiCYMQEFZBQhd5Q/6TuVmgd8LxM2ULIXkDTnIrBN9XTt3bRLyRuI4G+V5tJXeTkM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:460a:: with SMTP id t10mr89384wrq.145.1632331390016;
 Wed, 22 Sep 2021 10:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKqmYPZK8RHFs7SdXZKwb_gCEwrKRyJvbcgDNLh=RU0hYebh-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKqmYPZK8RHFs7SdXZKwb_gCEwrKRyJvbcgDNLh=RU0hYebh-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:22:58 +0300
Message-ID: <CAFk2RUZ1yzksH-n8saKzUk2LwCL3LiAWGjjFnQewbU3tFzzibA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] assert that deleting by pointer to base in unique_ptr
 does not cause UB
To: Antony Polukhin <antoshkka@gmail.com>
Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
 gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list <libstdc++.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/libstdc++>,
 <mailto:libstdc++-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/>
List-Post: <mailto:libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libstdc++-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libstdc++>,
 <mailto:libstdc++-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 17:23:12 -0000

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 20:09, Antony Polukhin via Libstdc++
<libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> std::unique_ptr allows construction from std::unique_ptr of derived
> type as per [unique.ptr.single.asgn] and [unique.ptr.single.ctor]. If
> std::default_delete is used with std::unique_ptr, then after such
> construction a delete is called on a pointer to base. According to
> [expr.delete] calling a delete on a non similar object without a
> virtual destructor is an undefined behavior.
>
> This patch turns that undefined behavior into static assertions inside
> std::unique_ptr.

I don't understand the sizeof(_Tp) == sizeof(_Up) part in the
static_assert. I fail to see how
a same-size check suggests that the types are similar enough that a
delete-expression works.