From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id D5C713858C50; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:59:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D5C713858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681894785;
	bh=Mfi6hbUyG6FBbosfUwcZU8T9hhCsfbRrBnm1LnFph5A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tmUIIUy/PWEOhZkY+KUmupEcf+YJq7KTxd+GOW1fdM68f/eEIBrwNkrUbYVzNp7uy
	 ujBn3JI2C8pPE24yVNbJl/fdGaarm9UbzOljVnlVrzEzkydmCKjMOpDj8xKLtbQEeZ
	 5WwmoKJq8Bppdd1u2V6hVaxN01WfFod6FXq4k2lk=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109548] Detect c_str() dangling problems
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:59:42 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-109548-4-VXg4Y8ZdNk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109548-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109548-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109548

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-04-19
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We could special-case std::basic_string::c_str() here but maybe it would be
better to add an attribute for describing the lifetime of pointers/referenc=
es
returned from member functions.

We could annotate string::c_str() and string::data() and string::begin() et=
c.
to indicate that they share the lifetime of *this:

    [[gnu::lifetime(this)]]
    const charT*
    basic_string<charT, traits, Alloc>::c_str() const noexcept;

And maybe annotate member functions of view-like types to say that they _do=
n't_
share the lifetime of *this:

    [[gnu::lifetime(!this)]]
    T*
    span<T, E>::data() const noexcept;

(!this) is not visually distinct from (this) though, so a different syntax
would be better. Maybe lifetime(nullptr) or lifetime(0)?

It might not be possible to use lifetime(this) annotations for non-trivial
analysis, because of cases like this:

    std::string s =3D "abc";
    auto p =3D s.c_str();  // OK
    s.clear();           // p now dangles
    *p;                  // ERR

Without creating a DSL for describing iterator invalidation of members like
string::clear() and string::insert() we can probably only use such an attri=
bute
to allow the front-end to diagnose the simplest cases like foo().c_str() in
comment 0.=