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.