Happy to see discussion of LLVM's interesting implementation of Static Polymorphism using CRTP. Some recommended reads:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_p...

2. https://david.alvarezrosa.com/posts/devirtualization-and-sta...

3. https://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#the-isa-cast-an...

LLVM now has another way to implement RTTI using the `CastInfo` trait instead of `classof`: https://llvm.org/doxygen/structllvm_1_1CastInfo.html

But it's really just an implementation difference, the idea is still to have a lightweight RTTI.

It's not clear to me (and as an unsafe language it's not called out by your compiler if you do something illegal) what the correct way to spell this kind of trick is in C++

I had thought you need the pointer-sized integer types and mustn't do this directly to an actual pointer, but maybe I was wrong (in theory, obviously practice doesn't follow but that's a dangerous game)

Doing bitwise operations directly on raw pointers is a fast track to Undefined Behavior in standard C/C++. Emacs gets away with it largely due to its age, its heavy reliance on specific GCC behaviors/extensions, and how its build system configures compiler optimizations.

In modern C++, the technically "correct" and safe way to spell this trick is exactly as you suggested: using uintptr_t (or intptr_t).

Do (u)intptr_t preserve provenance? Or does this count as exposed provenance when you convert back and forth?

Maybe that is not the correct C++ terminology, I'm more familiar with how provenance works in Rust, where large parts of it got stabilised a little over a year ago. (What was stabilised was "strict provenance", which is a set of rules that if you abide them will definitely be correct, but it is possible the rules might be loosened in the future to be more lenient.)

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ptr/index.html#provenance

Well, C++ does not have any promises about how Pointer Provenance works, so AFAIK the answer is "mu" meaning that's a bad question, don't ask that.

But the likely destiny of C++ is to inherit the provenance rules that are an adjunct to C23, PNVI-ae-udi, Provenance Not Via Integers, Addresses Exposed, User Disambiguates

As that name suggests, in this model provenance is not transmitted via integers. Every 123456 is always just the integer 123456 and there aren't magic 123456 values which are different and transmit some form of provenance from a pointer to some value which happened perhaps to be stored at address 123456 in memory.

However, PNVI-ae-udi has Exposure, which means if we exposed the pointer in an approved way then the associated provenance is somehow magically "out there" in the ether, as a result if we have exposed this pointer then just having that integer 123456 works fine because we combined that integer 123456 with that provenance from the ether and make a working pointer. User disambiguation means that the compiler has to give you "benefit of the doubt" e.g. if you could mean to make a pointer to that Doodad which no longer exists as of a minute ago or to this other Doodad which does exist, well, benefit of the doubt means it was the latter and so your pointer is valid even though the addresses of both Doodads were the same.

> But the likely destiny of C++ is to inherit the provenance rules that are an adjunct to C23, PNVI-ae-udi, Provenance Not Via Integers, Addresses Exposed, User Disambiguates

There's a competing proposal in C++ land to add provenance via angelic nondeterminism: if there's some provenance that makes the code non-UB, then use that provenance. (As you might imagine, I'm not a big fan of that proposal, but WG21 seems to love it a lot more than I do.)

Pointer provenance is not properly defined in C or C++. (There is a C TS that introduces pointer provenance, but it's not part of the main standard).

The problem of pointer provenance is more finding a workable theoretical model rather than one causing miscompiles on realistic code. While there are definitely miscompiles on carefully constructed examples, I'm not aware of any bugs on actual code. This is in comparison to topics like restrict(/noalias) semantics or lifetime semantics, where there is a steady drip of bug reports that turn out to be actual optimization failures.

There’s a paper in flight to add a stdlib type to handle pointer tagging as well while preserving pointer provenance and so-forth. It’s currently best to use the intptr types, but the goal is to make it so that an implementation can provide specializations based on what bits of a pointer are insignificant, or even ignored, on a given target without user code having to be specialized. Not sure where it has landed since discussion in SG1 but seemed like a good idea.

Given you aren't sure since SG1 this might be useless but... do you have a paper number? Or, more likely, know an author's name ?

It’s Hana Dusikova’s paper IIRC.

Seems like its p3125r0

Thanks! https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p31...

(is the current version of that paper, the tracking ticket insisted there's a P3125R5 and that LEWG had seen it in 2025, but it isn't listed in a mailing so it might be a mirage)

You know it's a Hana paper because it wants this to be allowed at compile time (C++ constrexpr) but joking aside this seems like a nice approach for C++ which stays agnostic about future implementation details.

Is there a similar solution to doing this in Rust? I suppose inside `unsafe` you can do basically anything.

Unlike C++ all of Rust's primitive types get the same first class treatment as your user defined types and so the appropriate API is provided as methods on pointer types. For this you want ptr::map_addr which takes a callable (such as your own function for this mapping or a lambda) to fiddle with the pointer.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.pointer.html#method....

Rust's MIRI is able to run code which uses this (a strict provenance API) because although MIRI's pointers are some mysterious internal type, it can track that we mapped them to hide our tags, and then later mapped back from the tagged pointer to recover our "real" pointer and see that's fine.

This isn't an unsafe operation. Dereferencing a pointer is unsafe, but twiddling the bits is fine, it just means whoever writes the unsafe dereferencing part of your codebase needs to be very careful about these pointers e.g. making sure the ones you've smuggled a tag in aren't dereferenced 'cos that's Undefined Behaviour.

It's clear to me how this works in Rust, it's just unclear still in C++

Everything else in the siblings is true, but remember that the language and std types in rust all do this already. Most of the time it’s better to use a native enum or optional/result because they do this in the compiler/lib. It’s only really worth it if you need more than a few types or need precise control of the representation for C interop or something.

To expand on the sibling answer: sort of! Rust will do niche optimisation, but for references and NonNull pointers this is limited to "the value 0 is invalid and can thus be used as a niche". But Rust does not (currently) take advantage of alignment niches in pointers. Nor does it use high bit on architectures where you know your whole theoretical address space isn't actually in use.

Is doing that manually worth it? Usually not, but for some core types (classical example is strings) or in language runtimes it can be.

Would it be awesome if this could be done automatically? Absolutely, but I understand it is a large change, and the plan is to later build upon the pattern types that are currently work in progress (and would allow you to specify custom ranged integer typed).

I mean, kinda, sorta? Rust's guaranteed niche optimisation means Option<&T> [which might be Some(&T) or just None] is promised to be the same size in memory as &T the reference to a T

So that's one tiny use of this sort of idea which is guaranteed unnecessary in Rust, and indeed although it isn't guaranteed the optimiser will typically spot less obvious opportunities so that Option<Option<bool>> which might be None, or Some(None) or Some(Some(true)) or Some(Some(false)) is the same size (one byte) as bool.

But hiding stuff in a pointer is applicable in places your Rust compiler won't try to take advantage unless you do something like this. A novel tiny String-like type I saw recently does this, https://crates.io/crates/cold-string ColdString is 8 bytes, if your text is 8 or fewer bytes of UTF-8 then you're done, that'll fit, but, if you have more text ColdString allocates on the heap to store not only your text but also its length and so it needs to actually "be" in some sense a raw pointer to that structure, but if the string is shorter that pointer is nonsense, we've hidden our text in the pointer itself.

Implementation requires knowing how pointers work, and how UTF-8 encoding works. I actually really like one of the other Rust tiny strings, CompactString but if you have a lot of very small strings (e.g. UK postcodes fit great) then ColdString might be as much as three times smaller than your existing Rust or C++ approach and it's really hard to beat that for such use cases.

Edited: To remove suggestion ColdString has a distinct storage capacity, this isn't intended as a conventional string buffer, it can't grow after creation

Rust is basically in the same place as C++, i.e. provenance rules are currently ad-hoc/conventional, meaning that pointer tagging is a grey area.

Nope. Rust stabilized strict provenance over a year ago. Some details about aliasing aren't tied down, but so long as you can obey the strict provenance rules you're golden today in Rust to hide flags in pointers etc.

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2025/01/09/Rust-1.84.0/#strict-pr...

The idiomatic way to safely do pointer tagging in C++ works through uintptr_t.

If you don't care about portability or using every theoretically available bit then it is trivial. A maximalist implementation must be architecture aware and isn't entirely knowable at compile-time. This makes standardization more complicated since the lowest common denominator is unnecessarily limited.

In C++ this really should be implemented through a tagged pointer wrapper class that abstracts the architectural assumptions and limitations.

Do the way LLVM does it.

Emacs internal part 2 HN link:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259961