Is the implementation of two-argument __non_unique_arm_rtti_bit_impl; ; __is_type_name_unique correct?

About the code originally introduced into libcxx/include/typeinfo as

    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
    bool operator==(const type_info& __arg) const _NOEXCEPT
#ifndef _LIBCPP_NONUNIQUE_RTTI_BIT
        {return __type_name == __arg.__type_name;}
#else
        {if (__type_name == __arg.__type_name) return true;
         if (!((__type_name & __arg.__type_name) & _LIBCPP_NONUNIQUE_RTTI_BIT))
           return false;
         return __compare_nonunique_names(__arg) == 0;}
#endif

in <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0090e657cb3a477ace4db59a6b5ae80baffec4c5> "ARM64: compare RTTI names as strings", and then factored out to

    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
    static bool __is_type_name_unique(__type_name_t __lhs, __type_name_t __rhs) _NOEXCEPT {
      return !((__lhs & __rhs) & __non_unique_rtti_bit::value);
    }

in <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2405bd6898151e0a7ffede78b0d0c7c85c0b66d3> "Rework std::type_info definition to support systems without fully merged type info names":

I wonder if it is correct to compute `__lhs & __rhs` rather than `__lhs

__rhs`? The documentation of NonUniqueARMRTTIBit (also in

libcxx/include/typeinfo) states that "we check whether BOTH type_infos are guaranteed unique, and if so, we simply compare the addresses of their type names instead of doing a deep string comparison, which is faster. If at least one of the type_infos can't guarantee uniqueness, we have no choice but to fall back to a deep string comparison."

So my understanding is that __is_type_name_unique should return false (and comparison fall back to deep string comparison) when at least one of __lhs and __rhs has the __non_unique_rtti_bit set, not only when both have it set.

Hi,

Yes, I do follow your thinking and I think you’re right. I went ahead and created a review (https://reviews.llvm.org/D97802) to avoid forgetting about this. I’ll need to investigate some more to make sure your interpretation is correct.

Thanks,
Louis

I now remember what prompted me to write the original mail, see the commit message of <https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/bf858e4b224ae4dc04f968a3d3c66d184dd1e33d^!/> "Fix macOS ARM64 RTTI generation": LibreOffice generates fake RTTI data at runtime, but had forgotten to set the NonUniqueARMRTTIBit. And what had puzzled me was that that fake RTTI (with NonUniqueARMRTTIBit unset) failed to compare equal to the real RTTI emitted by Clang (with NonUniqueARMRTTIBit set), given the documentation of NonUniqueARMRTTIBit in libcxx/include/typeinfo quoted above.

But <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97802> "[libc++] Fix incorrect typeinfo comparison on ARM64" now clarifies that it was the documentation that was actually wrong. Thanks for having picked this up!