<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>Issue</th>
<td>
<a href=https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/136800>136800</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>
[libc++] Should we backport `hash<nullptr_t>` and conditionally enabled `hash` from P0513R0?
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Labels</th>
<td>
question,
libc++,
lwg-issue
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Assignees</th>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Reporter</th>
<td>
frederick-vs-ja
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<pre>
[P0513R0](https://wg21.link/p0513r0) resolved [LWG2543](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2543), [LWG2791](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2791), [LWG2809](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2809), and [LWG2817](https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2817). Among these LWG issues, LWG2543 (`hash<nullptr_t>`) and LWG2817 (conditionally enabled `hash`, affecting `hash<unique_ptr>`) affects pre-C++17 utilities.
Currently there's implementation divergence:
- libc++ doesn't backport LWG2543 or LWG2817.
- libstdc++ backports LWG2817 but not LWG2543.
- MSVC STL backports both LWG2543 or LWG2817.
Should we backport LWG2543 and/or LWG2817?
</pre>
<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://email.email.llvm.org/o/eJyclE1vpDgQhn9NcbEamTK04cChP5ZceqXVZrU5jgy4wRO3zdimo_z7lUl_JNpEI-WAkEy9T1W9VFl4rwYjZQ3FFop9IuYwWlcfneylU93z6uxXP0XS2v41hvxFi4z9TaHYA5ZjCJMHtgFsAJuXAbNUK_MM2EwxzFHAijjprT7LnkCxPTw9YJGzz9TdpGcfn3RQYZzbVFnA5vD0ANgo72e5CLEC3F1JvMq-R4rCD6SSVt8jReEbSZhbh2XGv0nLOGCVks3JmoGEUXpJDk8PZPnqY5aLgQSwhDUdhR-B7cys9RTcjwDsD1gvpsdqLqXE2M6aXgVljdD6lUgjWh1_yIUQJTsijkfZBWUGcifPRv2a5Y8puHfoJc6TycnVDnALuM04mYPSKijpU6AboJvd7Jw0Qb_GNpwE5J6o06TlSZogYimkV2fpBmk6GS2imxXRqu3eiKS30htAHkgruufJunDr3bpra-lV5UN_FV7D_a3_dg7E2Jv-TfTn47878vjP4V18a8P4RRKgm8fRzronL_L_BQnTAzZ3BbAm6WvWV6wSiawznheMr3O-Tsa6Fx0VglWio5TSohRZzkued2XZloLzPlE1Uixojoxizot1KigWLCvyci0pZ9hBTuVJKJ1qfT6l1g3JMh51xtYlpYkWrdR-2WbEX7P00WtABNwB4t3h-9HLsFoI8aTYJ66O4FU7Dx5yqpUP_p4qqKCXq-IdqNiTT8z5cjyX2fzdQJKjsydyvWxYk8xO1x_X6bJEnT0BNrHAy2s1OftTduG6VR6wuXhzrvG_AAAA___L0X6-">