public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/108483] New: gcc warns about suspicious constructs for unevaluted ?: operand
@ 2023-01-20 18:27 gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de
  2023-01-20 20:01 ` [Bug c/108483] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (6 more replies)
  0 siblings, 7 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de @ 2023-01-20 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483

            Bug ID: 108483
           Summary: gcc warns about suspicious constructs for unevaluted
                    ?: operand
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.2.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 54318
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54318&action=edit
minimal example

A well-known construct to determine array sizes at compile time is

#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(*(x)))

gcc helpfully warns for dangerous mis-use of this macro, as it only works with
real arrays, not with pointer, for example. Assuming NULL is defined as
((void*)0), ARRAY_SIZE(NULL) yields a valid C expression, as long as we use the
gcc extension that sizeof(void) equals one:

ARRAY_SIZE(NULL) is expanded to essentially sizeof(void*)/sizeof(void)

which yields 8 on usual 64-bit systems and 4 on usual 32-bit system. While this
expression is valid, the result of this expression is likely not what the
programmer intended, so the gcc warning "division ‘sizeof (void *) / sizeof
(void)’ does not compute the number of array elements" is warranted.

The Linux kernel contains a macro essentially being

#define ARRAY_SIZE_MAYBENULL(x)  ( __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(x),
void*) ? 0 : (sizeof(x)/sizeof(*x)) )

which is intended to be invocable using actual array operands (returning the
array size) or the compile-time constant NULL (returning zero).

gcc correctly evaluates ARRAY_SIZE_MAYBENULL(NULL) to zero, but emits about the
suspicious pattern in the third operand of the ternary operator. This is not
helpful for the programmer, and breaks builds using -Wall -Werror.

This is a feature request to omit warnings about dubious constructs like this
if it can be statically determined that they are not evaluated.

The example in the attachment compiles correctly and initializes x to 1, but
emits the spurious warning about the unevaluated sizeof pattern.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-21 12:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-20 18:27 [Bug c/108483] New: gcc warns about suspicious constructs for unevaluted ?: operand gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de
2023-01-20 20:01 ` [Bug c/108483] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-20 20:03 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-20 20:15 ` gcc-bugzilla at mkarcher dot dialup.fu-berlin.de
2023-01-20 21:05 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-20 21:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-21 11:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-21 12:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).