[Bug c/102502] New: C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[Bug c/102502] New: C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[i at maskray dot me]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502

            Bug ID: 102502
           Summary: C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0
                    while allows it in higher -O
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: i at maskray dot me
  Target Milestone: ---

Under some circumstances,

  const size_t allocation_size = 32768;
  _Static_assert (allocation_size >= sizeof (struct dirent64), "allocation_size
< sizeof (struct dirent64)");

-O0 and non -O0 have different behaviors whether the `const int` operand can be
used in a constant expression (-O0: `error: expression in static assertion is
not constant`).
This is different from a bug "fixed for GCC 8 by r8-4755".


git clone https://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git
cd glibc
mkdir -p out/gcc; cd out/gcc
../../configure --prefix=/tmp/glibc/gcc --disable-werror
make -j 20   # you can SIGINT after some needed files used below are generated

Comment out some lines to allow -O0 compiles:

--- i/include/libc-symbols.h
+++ w/include/libc-symbols.h
@@ -71,9 +71,9 @@
 #define _LIBC  1

 /* Some files must be compiled with optimization on.  */
-#if !defined __ASSEMBLER__ && !defined __OPTIMIZE__
-# error "glibc cannot be compiled without optimization"
-#endif
+//#if !defined __ASSEMBLER__ && !defined __OPTIMIZE__
+//# error "glibc cannot be compiled without optimization"
+//#endif

 /* -ffast-math cannot be applied to the C library, as it alters the ABI.
    Some test components that use -ffast-math are currently not part of



# My source dir is at $HOME/Dev/glibc . You may need to adjust.
a=(../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-opendir.c -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline -g -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wundef -fmerge-all-constants -frounding-math
-fno-stack-protector -fno-common -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition
-fmath-errno -fPIC -fno-stack-protector -DSTACK_PROTECTOR_LEVEL=0 -mno-mmx
-ftls-model=initial-exec -I../include -I$HOME/Dev/glibc/out/gcc/elf
-I$HOME/Dev/glibc/out/gcc -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/64
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86/include
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86 -I../sysdeps/x86/nptl
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/x86_64/nptl
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/include -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux
-I../sysdeps/nptl -I../sysdeps/pthread -I../sysdeps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/inet
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/unix
-I../sysdeps/posix -I../sysdeps/x86_64/64 -I../sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/multiarch
-I../sysdeps/x86_64/fpu -I../sysdeps/x86/fpu -I../sysdeps/x86_64/multiarch
-I../sysdeps/x86_64 -I../sysdeps/x86/include -I../sysdeps/x86
-I../sysdeps/ieee754/float128 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96/include
-I../sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-96 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64
-I../sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754
-I../sysdeps/generic -I.. -I../libio -I. -D_LIBC_REENTRANT -include
$HOME/Dev/glibc/out/gcc/libc-modules.h -include ../include/libc-symbols.h -DPIC
-DSHARED -DTOP_NAMESPACE=glibc -fsyntax-only)

cd $HOME/Dev/glibc/elf


% gcc-11 $=a -O2  # no diagnostic
% gcc-11 $=a -O1  # no diagnostic
% gcc-11 $=a -O0
In file included from ../include/features.h:488,
                 from ../posix/sys/types.h:25,
                 from ../include/sys/types.h:1,
                 from ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dirstream.h:21,
                 from ../include/dirent.h:3,
                 from ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/opendir.c:18,
                 from ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/dl-opendir.c:1:
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/opendir.c: In function ‘__alloc_dir’:
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/opendir.c:107:35: error: expression in static
assertion is not constant
  107 |   _Static_assert (allocation_size >= sizeof (struct dirent64),
      |                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../include/sys/cdefs.h:7:59: note: in definition of macro ‘_Static_assert’
    7 | # define _Static_assert(expr, diagnostic) _Static_assert (expr,
diagnostic)
      |                                                           ^~~~


gcc-8, gcc-9, and gcc-10 from Debian testing have the same behavior.

[Bug c/102502] C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Can you attach the preprocessed source?

[Bug c/102502] C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Why do you think it is a bug?
This is not valid C11 code, and as an extension gcc when optimizations enabled
in some cases will accept in constant expressions even something that it
doesn't have to.
With -pedantic-errors it is properly rejected at all optimization levels.
It is also rejected at file scope.
If you want to make it valid in C11, use enum { allocation_size = (size_t)
32768 };
instead.
const doesn't work in C the same as in C++...

[Bug c/102502] C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[i at maskray dot me]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502

--- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> ---
OK, Andrew asked me to file it :)
I just wanted to fix glibc and run away from the GCC inconsistency.

I know that
https://www.iso-9899.info/n1570.html#6.6 p10 says
"An implementation may accept other forms of constant expressions."

Accepting `const int` in C mode is an extension, but it seems odd to be
inconsistent (-O0 and -O2 -Wpedantic reject it while -O2 allows it).


% cat reduce.i
const int __alloc_dir_allocation_size = 8;
void __alloc_dir() { _Static_assert(__alloc_dir_allocation_size, ""); }

% gcc reduce.i -c -std=c11 
reduce.i: In function ‘__alloc_dir’:
reduce.i:2:37: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
    2 | void __alloc_dir() { _Static_assert(__alloc_dir_allocation_size, ""); }
      |                                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
% gcc reduce.i -c -std=c11 -O1
% gcc reduce.i -c -std=c11 -O2
% gcc reduce.i -c -std=c11 -O2 -Wpedantic
reduce.i: In function ‘__alloc_dir’:
reduce.i:2:37: warning: expression in static assertion is not an integer
constant expression [-Wpedantic]
    2 | void __alloc_dir() { _Static_assert(__alloc_dir_allocation_size, ""); }
      |                                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Clang just rejects it in all optimization levels.


% clang reduce.i -c -std=c11 -O0
reduce.i:2:37: error: static_assert expression is not an integral constant
expression
void __alloc_dir() { _Static_assert(__alloc_dir_allocation_size, ""); }
                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
% clang reduce.i -c -std=c11 -O1
reduce.i:2:37: error: static_assert expression is not an integral constant
expression
void __alloc_dir() { _Static_assert(__alloc_dir_allocation_size, ""); }
                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.

[Bug c/102502] C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Why do you think it is a bug?

Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
inconsistency, PR 66618, and PR 71983 for an example. There are others.

Oh there is an inconsistency when the _Static_assert is not in a function vs
inside a function.
Take:
static const int allocation_size = 32768;
_Static_assert (allocation_size, "");
void f(void) { _Static_assert(allocation_size, ""); }

The assert inside the function is accepted at -O1 but reject at -O0 while the
one outside is always rejected.

[Bug c/102502] C11: _Static_assert disallows const int operand in -O0 while allows it in higher -O

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102502

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Why do you think it is a bug?
> 
> Because there were other bugs which were fixed where there was an
> inconsistency, PR 66618, and PR 71983 for an example. There are others.
> 
> Oh there is an inconsistency when the _Static_assert is not in a function vs
> inside a function.
> Take:
> static const int allocation_size = 32768;
> _Static_assert (allocation_size, "");
> void f(void) { _Static_assert(allocation_size, ""); }
> 
> The assert inside the function is accepted at -O1 but reject at -O0 while
> the one outside is always rejected.

But it is an intentional decision, to match the previous behavior in that area
plus handle what was needed.