While reading comments of a C++ Weekly video about the constexpr new support in C++20 I found the comment that alleges that C++20 allows UB in constexpr context.
At first I was convinced that comment is right, but more I thought about it more and more I began to suspect that C++20 wording contains some clever language that makes this defined behavior.
Either that all transient allocations return unique addresses or maybe some more general notion in C++ that makes 2 distinct allocation pointers always(even in nonconstexpr context) compare false even if at runtime in reality it is possible that allocator would give you back same address(since you deleted the first allocation).
As a bonus weirdness: you can only use == for comparison, <, > fail...
Here is the program with alleged UB in constexpr:
#include <iostream>
static constexpr bool f()
{
auto p = new int(1);
delete p;
auto q = new int(2);
delete q;
return p == q;
}
int main()
{
constexpr bool res1 = f();
std::cout << res1 << std::endl; // May output 0 or 1
}